Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 Next
Comments 56801 to 56850:
-
Alexandre at 00:41 AM on 12 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
I don't know what the grey color stands for in figure 1. Is it "no data available" or "no subsidies"? I do know that Brazil has subsidies at least for diesel and LP gas, although I don't have the numbers. -
Kevin C at 00:31 AM on 12 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
vrooomie: Never trust your intuition. The roughly 35C colder figure is one of the few things in Giaever's talk which is accurate. See for example IPCC AR4. (But you were pretty unlucky with the claim you picked. The odds of picking one that was right were pretty low.) -
vrooomie at 23:28 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Just finished watching the video by Dr. Giaever: oh my gosh... He states that "Without an atmosphere, the Earth would be *roughly* 35C colder." Whaaaa? I'm just a geologist but I'm *fairly* certain it would roughly be a LOT colder than that! The amount of uter falsehoods, incorrect assumptions, and misconstrued "facts" in this are, to me, as embarrassing as any of Christopher Monckton's prounouncements. This is indeed one of the myriad reasons I find it so difficult to discuss the science with fake skeptics, when *notable* fake skeptics such Dr. Giaever step into it this deeply. Sigh...... -
BC at 23:26 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Fig 3 shows that about 800 climate scientists are convinced by the evidence of human caused climate change and around 90 are unconvinced. The percentage of unconvinced here, approx 11%, is higher than the 2%-3% figure from other surveys, which is a worry to me. If you take out the least experienced first pair of figures it gets closer to the 3%. I've sometimes wondered how many climate scientists there are and this implies a bit less than 1000, based on papers published. I'm impressed that someone has published around 900 papers. There's also someone who's published 650 papers who is unconvinced by the evidence! I wonder who these two scientists are. -
Dikran Marsupial at 23:06 PM on 11 July 2012Murry Salby's Correlation Conundrum
Tom Curtis I don't follow your argument here, please could you explain it in a bit more detail. I can't see how the conclusion of the mass balance argument (that the natural environment is a net carbon sink) can possibly be false if the assumptions (conservation of mass and the relatively low uncertainty in the observations) are true. Can you provide equations for Ea, En, Un and C', such that conservation of mass is observed and where Un < En while at the same time C' < Ea. As far as I can see, this is a mathematical imposibility. -
vrooomie at 22:56 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
curiousd@9: Similar situation for me. Scientist A (let's call him "booomie"), who is a GEOlogist, works with numerous and well-respected GEOphysicists. "Booome' spends about 5 years doing intensive research into a whole host of resources that are concerned with AGW, including becoming a friend toa noted researcher at NASA-Goddard. "Booomie's" discovery of "Sepical Skience" is his next big step, in doing research on the topic of AGW, which sends him even deeper into scholastic sources that support the AGW theory. "Booomie" reads over 1000 papers on the topic and is pretty-well convinced, by the data and interpretation thereof, that AGW is ~anything~ but a "hoax," a "crock," or "bad science." "Booomie" then has the *temerity* to put forth the AGW theory to a few of the Ph.D. GEOphysicists and is agog (I think J. Cook would say "gobsmacked!) when aforementioned GEOphysicists assert, loudly and with *great* authority, that AGW is essentially a crock. "Booomie" is left scratching his head and doing *much* more research on "confirmation bias"......;) -
Composer99 at 22:34 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
I don't know whether Nobel-winnng scientists are more likely than others to go off the rails when speculating on fields outside those they have specialized in (although they may well be, bolstered by the status conferred by the prize). However, they certainly get more publicity (one thinks here of Luc Montaigner), and the Nobel adds unwarranted credibility to their claims, even if the evidence shows their speculations are incorrect. -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:42 PM on 11 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
@angusmac wrote The main point of my post @12 was to query the use of Figure 2, which is lifted directly from RC." This is essentially an ad-hominem, questioning the source of some information rather than the content. Why not get it from RC, from an article written by a climate modeller, who is an expert in the area and knows how to properly determine if there is a model-observation discrepancy. Would it make any difference if we used the version of the diagram that I created from the same model runs? "I asked why not use Figure TS.26 from AR4?" because TS.26 provides only a very brief summary of what the CMIP3 models actually say, and does not provide the required information to determine whethere there actually is a model-observation discrepancy (the answer is "no, not really"). -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:32 PM on 11 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
@angusmac writes "Figure 2 hides the 2-sigma trend in real-world temperatures in a mass of grey, whereas the TS.26 shows this discrepancy very clearly. " The mass of grey in figure 2 is the 2-sigma region, I cannot see how much more clearly it could be depicted than that. This one comment suggests quite strongly to me that you have misunderstood what figure 2 is actually saying. "Figure 2 does not show smoothed data. Once again this tends to hide the discrepancy between real-world temperatures and model projections". No, if you want to determine if there is a model-observation discrepancy you need to look at the data itself. Smoothing hides the true variability of the data, and to detect a discrepancy you need an accurate characterisation of the variability. The observations are currently between the 1-sigma and 2-sigma boiundaries (actually more or less half way). Is this surprising or unusual? No, the observations can be expected to be in that region about 1/3 of the time, even if the models are perfectly correct (so your 1 out of 10 characterisation is rather off). Note that in 1998 the observations were skirting the other side of the 2-sigma region even more closely. Does that mean that in 1998 ecomentalists would have a point in saying that the models underestimate warming? No. An important factor that is often missed is that there is a one in 20 chance of seeing an observation outside the 2-sigma range if you look at a random sample from the distribution. However if you wait for an observation that supports your argument (as the "skeptics" often do), then the chance of such an observation ocurring by random chance increases quite rapidly the longer you wait, until it reaches the point where it is essentially inevitable. This is why statistics has the concept of "multiple hypothesis testing" to compensate for this bias (c.f. the Bonferonni adjustment). While the observations are nearish the 2-sigma region, that doesn't mean that this is statistically surprising in any way. If you want to find out just how unsurprising it would be, then here is an experiment to try. Run a model aith A1B forcings and generate, say, 100 model runs. For each run in turn, treat it as the observations and the rest as the ensemble projection. From the start of the run, count how many years you have to wait to find a model-observation discrepancy as large as the one we see at the moment. Generate a histogram. Compare with the number of years the skeptics have has to wait since the CMIP3 models were completed. I suspect you will find that the probability of having ssen such a discrepancy by now is substantially higher than 1 in 20. I'll try and dig out the data when I have a moment. -
angusmac at 21:15 PM on 11 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Albatross @16 There is little need for me to criticise Christy, plenty of people on this website are well able to do that. The main point of my post @12 was to query the use of Figure 2, which is lifted directly from RC. I asked why not use Figure TS.26 from AR4? I also explained why TS.26 is better @12 and subsequently @22. -
michael sweet at 20:42 PM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
This study does not count the health costs from pollution near fossil fuel sources or the damage from acid rain. I can only eat fish I catch in the pond in my backyard twice a month because they are contaminated with mercury from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels contain many problems beyond the CO2. -
angusmac at 20:23 PM on 11 July 2012Christy Exaggerates the Model-Data Discrepancy
Dikran Maraupial @14 Regarding your, "I would be happy to answer any questions about Figure 2." That's very kind of you and I would be pleased if you would answer one, which is more of a request than a question. Posting the data for your version of Figure 2 on the SkS resource library would be very useful. I have not found the data retrieval process as straightforward as you suggest. Having the numerical data in an easily accessible form (Excel or csv) would allow easy cross-checking for errors, etc. Regarding, "... if you feel that the AR4 diagram tells a different story...", you suggest that I have missed some subtlety and that I start by checking the error bars. Please note that AR4 Figure TS.26 and my version of it in Figure 1 clearly show the error bars. Furthermore, I agree with the comments presented by Tom Curtis @72 and you @73 here that the real-world temperatures are currently skirting the 2-sigma levels in the models. I also concur that Figures 2 and TS.26 both tell the same overall story, namely, real-world temperatures are following the 2-sigma levels from the model ensemble. It is just that TS.26 presents this fact more clearly. My main contentions regarding Figure 2 are as follows:- Figure 2 hides the 2-sigma trend in real-world temperatures in a mass of grey, whereas the TS.26 shows this discrepancy very clearly.
- Figure 2 does not show smoothed data. Once again this tends to hide the discrepancy between real-world temperatures and model projections.
- Figure 2 omits the Commitment Scenario that is presented in TS.26. This scenario should be shown in any projections diagram because it is a very useful benchmark for comparing the accuracy of the projections.
-
curiousd at 18:16 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Since ad hominum is out, the following will have to be couched in personal recollection. True tale, though: Scientist X receives Nobel in field A. Scientist X retires, essentially, but in an interview with national magazine is asked if he wishes to comment on science in general. X replies, essentially, thus: I do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. (comment related to field B). X Is asked "Why" by interviewer. Response, essentially, is this: Might as well, if you happen to be proven right for a claim that far outside the consensus, you will be famous. No one becomes famous for believing what everyone else does. This twisted kind of reasoning is behind a lot of this, IMO. -
Lars Rosenberg at 17:13 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Ivar Giaever spent most of his working life at General Electric. In later years he has held a professorship at Oslo University, payed for by StatOil. He seems to belong to Fred Singers vast social network. Giaever wrote a short opinion piece in Aftenposten a few years ago, telling his fellow norwegians that global warming stopped in 1998. The only authority mentioned was Fred Singer. When Giaever resigned by from the APS last september he sent a copy of the e-mail to Fred Singer, who published it at his website. Curiously, he also copied the letter to Hal Lewis, who died half a year earlier. -
Rob Painting at 17:11 PM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
Clyde @ 57 - Only in a warming climate does the probability of record-breaking warm extremes increase. In a stationary climate, i.e no long-term warming or cooling, the probability of record breaking actually decreases with time. That you seem hung up on the false notion that extreme heatwaves always happen simply underscores that you do not understand this concept. And it is obvious you have not bothered to read the SkS pages you were referred to. Repeating debunked information, as you have, is deemed to be "sloganeering." Genuine discussion is encouraged, but sloganeering is unwelcome and contravenes the comments policy. I suggest you familiarise yourself with it before commenting further. Learning requires a willing participant. -
John Cook at 17:03 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Okay, great article, Dana and yes, Giaever's arguments are very weak. But physicists are actually nice people, really! You can't stereotype an entire community based on a few extreme examples! :-) -
skywatcher at 16:56 PM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
One of Clyde's parting shots classically illustrates the problem here:"We have always had extreme weather events. We will continue to have them."
It illustrates a fundamental disconnect here, and Clyde is not the first to have this disconnect. There's a complete refusal to contemplate the observation that extreme events are truly on the rise, even when it is pointed out directly. Clyde was pointed at #30 to a paper and shown a figure that actually showed the weakness of his above statement, specifically that heatwaves are increasing in frequency and intensity across the globe. Yet Clyde showed no sign of acknowledging the existence of such data that shows that extreme heat events have been observed to increase in our warming world. And there's evidently a failure to see the difference between the increased likelihood of certain extremes happening, and the impossible task of precisely attributing to AGW the formation of an individual high-pressure cell which leads to a climate extreme, repeated in his final comments. These are very different things. It's chaotic weather that throws the punches. How hard those punches are is determined by the state of the climate. A warmer climate will generally drive more intense 'heat' punches, 'drier' punches, and more intense 'wet' punches. And that wet stuff in winter can mean more intense 'snowy' punches. There are fewer 'cold' punches, as recorded in low temperatures. Where and when those punches fall is driven by the weather, but you cannot ignore the climate influence. If you do, you might make the mistake of thinking you're going into the ring with Mr Bean, but actually find it's Mohammed Ali that's in the other corner! The best analogy there is the smokers and lung cancer connection. Smoking brings a clear increased likelihood of cancer, but attributing each individual cancer growth ('weather') to tobacco smoke is very difficult indeed. Does Clyde think there's little or no connection between smoking and cancer? I doubt it. I suspect we'll see plenty more people who appear to have a strong desire not to want to see the increasingly obvious impact of a warming climate and intensifying hydrological cycle. How long will the disconnect remain? Until the next 3-sigma event comes knocking on their door? Will it be (in America) when every last Dust Bowl record has tumbled, even the ones that remain after a load were tumbled by the recent US heatwave? Do we have to wait, like a bunch of boiling frogs, for the next round of even greater/more frequent extremes? -
JohnMashey at 16:36 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
See a talk by Nobel particle physicist Burt Richter, who "retired" from running SLAC, and then spent a lot of time learning about climate. He already knew a bit about energy. His climate slides could have been used by Al Gore. Burt ran the American Physical Society project on energy efficiency, has a decent book out, and continues to be involved in useful projects. Giaever was one of the signers of the 2009 APS Petition. He was in wave B, i.e., likely recruited directly by the organizers. I cannot know, but if I had to guess, Happer or Austin. Giaever has since resigned from the APS. -
kwinters79 at 15:52 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Wow, that's simply amazing. His slide showing the temperature change in Kelvin must have been tongue-in-cheek. No real physicist would be so ridiculously arbitrary in the selection of units. Using a different temperature scale (Réaumur for example) one can get that the temperature increased from ~12.0 °R to 12.64 °R (5.3%). That is amazingly rapid warming!!! -
dana1981 at 15:20 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Chris @2 - thanks, and props to Andy S for suggesting the cartoon. It really is a perfect illustration of Giaever's behavior. Composer @3 - agreed, there's a difference between criticizing comments because they're 'unwelcome' and criticizing them because they're intellectually lazy and wrong. Giaever and most of his contrarian counterparts' arguments fall into the latter category. There is certainly a strong correlation between climate contrarianism and intellectually lazy/wrong arguments, so it's easy to see why they would confuse the two categories. -
Composer99 at 14:55 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
One of the more common misrepresentations (doubtless the result of motivated reasoning in the majority of cases) that contrarians make use of is the assertion that mainstream climate science makes an effort to silence dissenting opinions (topically, we have Giaever complaining that dissenting opinions are not welcome). What is going on, so it seems to me at any rate, is that they are conflating the inevitable criticism of their opinions (which is entirely reasonable) with "silencing dissent". As far as I can see Giaever has fallen into this trap as well. -
Chris McGrath at 14:54 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Thanks for such an interesting de-construction Dana. I loved the cartoon too. -
Clyde at 14:44 PM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
Thanks to all for a civil discussion on the subject. It's obvious we disagree on the subject. No hard feelings on my part, hope theres none on yours. Look forward to my next "adventurer" here. [-Snip-] Have a nice dayModerator Response:[DB] "Look forward to my next "adventurer" here."
When you do return, please better adhere to the comments policy when constructing your comments. Also, links to supportive sources should be made to the peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals, not to fake-skeptic websites.
Off-topic snipped.
-
Clyde at 14:39 PM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
What some of you are saying - GW is happening therefore its the cause of extreme weather events happening now. No matter what happens, floods, drought, heatwave,freak snow storms etc etc it will be blamed on GW. We have always had extreme weather events. We will continue to have them. Again I'm not saying GW had no no part in the heatwaves. Both papers i linked to said mother nature was the main cause of the Russian heatwave. What we are (as far as i can tell) disagreeing on is how much was mother nature responsible for vs how much GW was. The American heatwave is yet to be determined. An examination of the 20th century climate of North America reveals that the decades of 1920s and 1930s, known as the Dust Bowl years, witnessed perhaps the most extreme climate over the Great American Plains and elsewhere. Did GW cause that too? Nobody has shown any proof that the Russian heatwave or the one America just had was caused by GW. They speculate & make assumptions that GW did. It will take year[s]? before any proof is provided that GW caused the American or Russian heatwave. IMO it would be nice if those reporting such things would wait on the evidence. ------------------------------------------- [-Snip-] Conclusion: “Earth’s Temperature” appears to have increased during the last several decades, but there does not appear to be any evidence of rapid or extreme warming. Claims and insinuations that recent temperatures and weather in the Continental US are caused or related to “Global Warming” are not supported by the observational data. --------------------------------------- That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. [-Snip-]Moderator Response: [DB] Link to fake-skeptic website snipped. Pedantry snipped. Bad html fixed. -
Tristan at 14:23 PM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
In my experience, a good fraction of the anti-renewable subsidies brigade are entirely unaware of all this. Use this page to make your libertarian friends aghast! -
TScanlon at 14:22 PM on 11 July 2012Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Have to love the arrogance. He really does wear his ignorance on his sleeve and then start digging. Although, there are plenty of scientists guilty of this. We're just as vulnerable to hubris as the next person. -
dana1981 at 13:30 PM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
WeelsOC - yes, to this point we've always referred to carbon emissions as an economic externality, but as you note, that hasn't gained much traction amongst the self-proclaimed free marketers, perhaps because economics often isn't intuitive. These same folks tend to strongly oppose subsidies, so perhaps framing CO2 emissions in that light will result in a little more progress. -
WheelsOC at 12:22 PM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
Basically these roundabout subsidies are externalities, the costs of something that aren't reflected in the price, a devious distortion of the market. I've been trying to put this in terms that contrarians, obstructionists, and denialists can understand recently by explaining why they are bad for any "free market" approach; they wreck the pricing power of the market with costs that aren't priced into the product. Consumers can't make informed decisions about where to value energy if the cost is hidden behind an attractive price. Despite this entirely market-based explanation, it's very difficult to nudge people into thinking of various carbon pricing schemes as restoring balance to the market by accounting for hidden costs instead of reacting as though it were a government-imposed artificial mark-up beyond the real costs. Almost invariably, they continue to assume the latter. You can be as plain-spoken as you want but the explanation just doesn't click. That's been my experience, at least. The issue of externalities, esp. regarding pollution and environmental degradation, is not something people with a shallow but enthusiastically committed view of "the power of the market" or "maximal individual freedom" are prepared to deal with. On some levels it's just not a common-sense, plainly visible danger. It's an insidiously slow and spread-out effect, but that doesn't change the fact that it infringes on the freedom of everybody regardless of whether they've consented to it. I think this is why the vocal "capital-L Libertarians" and others who see government intervention as an unnecessary evil choose to deny or marginalize the problem, it doesn't fit with their supposedly superior platform. The alternative is to admit that some form of government regulation is both necessary and good, which they are irrationally loathe to do. -
KR at 12:16 PM on 11 July 2012Newcomers, Start Here
curiousd - If it's on a publicly accessible website, use the image embedding HTML from the Comments Policy page. If it's something you've generated, put it up on Flickr, Imageshack, or a similar site, and link to that with the same HTML methods. Keep in mind that SkS prefers the 450 and under pixel wide method in: -a href="http://page_url"--img src="http://image_url" alt="" width="450" /--/a- with the "-" being replaced by greater than and less than symbols as appropriate. -
curiousd at 12:10 PM on 11 July 2012Newcomers, Start Here
Hi, I have a question that necessitates showing a scientific graph. Is there a way I can make such a graph visible to others? -
numerobis at 10:49 AM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
Gas taxes don't seem to be negligible: US gas taxes alone are in the $100 billion order of magnitude. That said, the US also spends a huge amount on foreign policy (largely military) related to oil supplies, also probably not accounted for here. Then another source is infrastructure spending: building roads and sewers for people moving to new oil exploitations, who would otherwise have stayed at home. That gets very tricky to account for. -
calyptorhynchus at 09:59 AM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
Historians of the future (if there are any) will be fascinated at how our society paid so dearly for its own demise. -
Riduna at 09:45 AM on 11 July 2012Nil Illegitimi Carborundum
Mike Pope, Australia -
skywatcher at 09:32 AM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
Clyde #52:"The Hansen paper & NOAA say (taking your word on what Hansen's paper says) extreme heat waves are likely to become increasingly frequent in the region in coming decades. "
Clyde, you really need to actually read the paper (I don't think it's paywalled) before claiming to know what they say. Even read the SkS summary I pointed you towards - it has the key figures. Hansen et al show that increasing extremes are already happening. Not in the future, but now. In the real world, they've been increasing over the past few decades. I read somewhere that the blocking event that caused the most recent US heatwave wasn't the strongest such event on record (ie central pressure not so high etc). One wonders how high the temperatures could have got had the block been even stronger... -
John Hartz at 09:17 AM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
Some facts for Clyde (and others) to ponder: Thanks in part to the historic heat wave that demolished thousands of high temperature records at the end of June, temperatures in the contiguous U.S. were the warmest on record over the past twelve months and for the year-to-date period of January - June, said NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) on Monday. June 2012 was the 14th warmest June on record, so was not as extreme overall as March 2012 (first warmest March on record), April (third warmest April), or May (second warmest May.) However, temperatures were warm enough in June to set a new U.S. record for hottest 12-month period for the third straight month, narrowly eclipsing the record set just the previous month. The past thirteen months have featured America's 2nd warmest summer (in 2011), 4th warmest winter, and warmest spring on record. Twenty-six states were record warm for the 12-month period, and an additional sixteen states were top-ten warm. Source: “U.S. experiences warmest 12-month period on record—again” , Dr Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog, July 9, 2012 -
skywatcher at 09:11 AM on 11 July 2012New research special - cloud papers 2010-2011
Curiousd: I'd also maybe recommend Lowe and Walker's "Reconstructing Quaternary Environments", thought it's a little older now. It's an undergraduate textbook so may not go into the detail you'd like, but it has some basic material on oxygen isotopes, as applied to ice core and marine sediments (amongst a wealth of material about all manner of palaeoenvironmental reconstruction and chronology). No more than a few pages, but may have pointers to more detailed material? -
Tom Curtis at 08:07 AM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
dana1981 @2 not to forget Australia, which is middle of the road:
The issue of fuel taxes is somewhat vexed because they only applies to a limited portion of CO2 emissions.
They do not apply to fuel used in stationary energy generation, for example. In Australia, it does not apply to fuel used on farms or in mines. Because of that you need to have a measure of the emissions of CO2 by combustion of fuel on roads as a portion of all CO2 emissions to determine the value of fuel taxes as a counter subsidy.
What is more, fuel taxes, or a portion of fuel taxes when the tax is very high, can be considered a "user pays" method of funding the road system.
Therefore, to the extent that revenue received is less than the cost of maintaining and upgrading the national highway network, the fuel tax is not a counter subsidy on Carbon. China's fuel tax, for example, is explicitly earmarked for this purpose.
In a similar vane, given the high death an injury rate from road transport, fuel taxes could be in part considered a user pays funding of health care for injuries received from road accidents in nations with social health systems (Europe, Australia, Canada).
Arguably, however, all or most of these costs would exist with a fully electric transport system, in which case the revenue for these services would need to be raised in some other way. On that basis it could still be argued the full fuel tax revenue should be counted as a counter subsidy. Which approach is correct is a matter of convention. It is important to keep these conventions consistent, but it cannot be categorically asserted that one is right and the other wrong.
In any event, the information needed to calculate the level of the "counter subsidy" is not readily available AFAIK. Therefore it would be difficult, and beyond SkS's resources to included them as a counter subsidy. For that reason Dana noted that the definition of a "subsidy" is vague, and that "these are rough estimate". I am glad that you raised the issue so that a more explicit discussion could be made as a caveat on the post.
Having said that, this issue does not detract from the primary point of the post, ie, that the largest "subsidy" on fossil fuels is the hidden subsidy of uncompensated negative externalities.
-
dana1981 at 06:27 AM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
Thanks BillV. See the Cost Comparison section here for some discussion of adjusted energy costs. -
Composer99 at 06:17 AM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
Clyde: You appear to be ignoring shifting baselines in your objections to other posters' comments. Variable natural phenomena (such as blocking events) as well as variable temperature oscillations are occuring simultaneously with a rising temperature trend. But the rising trend is still there and still counts for something. In addition you appear have misunderstood Hansen's paper. It quite clearly shows that increased extreme heat events are happening now. Several maps in the paper, for example, quantify global June-July-August temperature anomalies (expressed as temperature anomalies and as standard deviation anomalies) for the last few years (I believe the latest year is 2011) relative to a 1951-1980 baseline. In fact, I do not see any essential conflict between your links & Hansen's paper. Global warming doesn't cause heat waves to magically happen on their own. The other proximal causes are still required. The Schneidereit et al paper from Monthly Weather Review links the Moscow heatwave to a blocking high event. Fair enough. One wonders, though, just what the heatwave would have been like in 1951 or 1980 given the information provided by Hansen. The NOAA press release notes "Knowledge of prior regional climate trends and current levels of greenhouse gas concentrations would not have helped us anticipate the 2010 summer heat wave in Russia". Again, this is entirely reasonable. Even knowing the powerful relationship between chronic cigarette smoking and various illnesses (lung cancer, emphysema, &c.) at the population level, we cannot anticipate which individual smokers will be so affected and which will not. But that does not invalidate the relationship. Taking your claim that the recent heatwave in the eastern US is not "as bad as the one's in 1930 & 1950" at face value, one wonders just what the heatwave would have been like in the absence of a long-term temperature trend since then. -
scaddenp at 06:16 AM on 11 July 2012New research special - cloud papers 2010-2011
Curiousd - the primary differentiation of the oxygen isotopes is due to preferential evaporation of O16 from sea surface, followed by preferential condensation of O18. Plants/animals can only use the atoms in their immediate neighbourhood, so they reflect the seawater. A good starting resource would be here. Useful papers linked as well as the Bradley textbook. -
BillV at 06:12 AM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
Great post. I like to see these unaccounted externalities put into numbers. Would love to see a post comparing these adjusted fossil fuel costs vs. forms of renewable energy to understand the true economics of energy generation. -
Rob Painting at 06:04 AM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
Clyde - please explain how the papers you cited earlier disentangle the effects of global warming from natural variability. You see I've read the NOAA paper in detail and it does no such thing. Global warming has been affecting weather patterns in some way for well over a century - the Dole paper compares weather patterns in a narrow region in 2010 influenced by global warming with weather patterns from an earlier periods also influenced by global warming. Hardly the basis for distinguishing natural variability from global warming. Insofar as singular events vs. increased record-breaking warm extremes - this concept is explained in the SkS links provided to you earlier - global warming increases the probability of record-breaking warm extremes. Note the analogy I provided in the basic version of the blog post on the 2010 freak Russian heatwave. If the average temperature increases, as in a warming climate, then it is only logical that the chaotic weather fluctuations will lead to increased record-breaking warm extremes. Accordingly, you are unlikely to find climate scientists attributing singular heatwave events to global warming, but likewise they should not attempt to attribute them to natural variability - there is always an element of both involved. Rather, what can be said is that global warming dramatically raises the odds of heatwaves & record-breaking heat. The analysis by NASA scientists Hansen, Sato & Ruedy shows that this is now a historical fact. -
curiousd at 05:56 AM on 11 July 2012New research special - cloud papers 2010-2011
On a different topic, can someone recommend the best place to really learn about the magic Oxygen 18 proxy? It is probably in a text book and if so I would gladly buy the text book no matter the cost. I do dig two things: 1. Since Oxygen 18 is heavier than Oxygen 16, the Oxygen 18 will tend to precipitate out faster from arctic air that blows toward warmer climes. Right?? 2. One can think of the oxygen 18 as a mass on a spring within ice, and since the mass of the 18 exceeds that of the 16, the classical omega = sqrt k/m is less for 18, which means the zero point energy, as you cool down so that the equipartition theorem no longer works, will be smaller so that 18 will evaporate somewhat less readily. But if important, this effect might depend on the ice temperature,right? But given my broad brush stroke understanding, this topic looks really complex. Why does O 18 work for plants/animals growing underneath the ocean, for instance? Book or URL, anyone recommend, to learn more?? -
curiousd at 05:40 AM on 11 July 2012New research special - cloud papers 2010-2011
Since the latest Hanson and Sato (the one this forum received as a pre print) does an experimental fit to past ice age data and gets a tremendous agreement between past temperatures and predictions based on best fit to short term climate sewnsitivity fitting only two parameters (CO2/methane), and short term includes clouds, why does this result not lay all the cloud uncertainty to rest right there? H@S get 3.0 plus or minus 0.5 degrees for CO2 short term sensitivity which is close to the most common value for the simulations. To me, that latest H@S fit is kind of a game changer. It is as good as one gets for fitting an unknown structure to extended x-ray absorption edge fine structure (EXAFS), by fitting, say, a deBye Waller term and one bond length. The garden variety physicist would believe this latest H@S more than any simulation. -
Clyde at 04:41 AM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
skywatcher 44 What is causing that increase? As of today the peer reviewed papers say it's mother nature. I got hammered on another subject here for not providing peer reviewed papers to back up my point. You & others are not using peer reviewed papers to make your case. You are speculating & making assumptions. The Hansen paper & NOAA say (taking your word on what Hansen's paper says) extreme heat waves are likely to become increasingly frequent in the region in coming decades. Neither paper is 10 years old, so their not saying the recent heatwave in America or the 2010 Russian heatwave were caused by GW. Are you still confident that Texas and Russian heatwaves have nothing to do with climate change? I never said nothing. See reply to skywatcher. For the media & weather folks on TV to say the recent heatwave (which wasn't as bad as the one's in 1930 & 1950) in America was caused by GW is misleading the public. -
Clyde at 04:37 AM on 11 July 2012Climate change is simple: We do something or we’re screwed
Rob Painting 40 Clyde - it is doubtful science is sufficiently advanced to attribute specific heat events solely to natural variability. I never said soley. I said not much & very little. I was disputing that GW is the main cause. I'm guessing if you think science isn't sufficiently advanced to attribute specific heat events to natural variability, its also not advanced enough to say GW is the sole cause? You simply need to read, absorb and understand the links that were provided to you earlier. I could say the same for you as to the links i provided. You admit the science of attributing specific events to global warming/natural variability is in its infancy. Then say it's well-founded that one can say GW is expected to cause such extreme events. Can't have it both ways. -
dana1981 at 04:06 AM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
Interesting point, OPatrick. I don't think fuel taxes are accounted for in those numbers. They also don't tend to be very large though, outside of a few places like Europe. -
OPatrick at 03:15 AM on 11 July 2012Carbon - the Huge and Yet Overlooked Fossil Fuel Subsidy
Should we not also include fuel taxes in the calculations, a sort of anti-subsidy? Or is that already accounted for in the values in figure 1? -
dana1981 at 01:44 AM on 11 July 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
Jomamax @ 14 you are incorrect on many points in your comment. For starters, carbon cap and trade systems and taxes have been implemented without the skyrocketing costs. For example, see Europe, British Columbia, and RGGI. Note that the latter two are in North America. Additionally, solar is already economical. I've got a leased solar system on my roof right now that's not costing me any more than standard electricity rates. Solar PV prices are dropping rapidly, and wind is already cheap. And I'm well aware of the "skeptic" climate arguments, thanks. -
Composer99 at 22:54 PM on 10 July 2012Michaels and Cato Unwittingly Accept the Climate Threat
jomamax: I'm sure you can provide some specifics, such as: (a) citations from economic and political science literature backing up your claims regarding the alleged 'devastating effects' of reducing fossil fuel emissions. Ideally on a thread where it is more on topic. (b) citations from the scientific literature backing up your so-called skepticism on the science. Again, preferably on topical threads. Contrarians and pseudoskeptics alike continually make sweeping, grandiose claims in a vein similar to yours and then continually neglect backing them up with substantial evidence. One wonders why this is.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please can we all try to keep the discussion as civil as possible. Jomamax has now been tasked to provide support for the assertions he has made (on appropriate threads), lets see what he/she provides, and discuss the science behind it.
Prev 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 Next
