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:
-
dana1981 at 01:58 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
jzk @43 - as someone who has done quite a lot to reduce his own personal CO2 emissions, I don't really appreciate the suggestion that 'all those who believe that AGW will cause considerable harm' are living lives of excess. -
Bernard J. at 01:42 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
At #38 jzk said:If there are people that prefer living without electricity, clean water and television, I have no interest in forcing them to do so.
and in so doing managed in one sentence to set up several straw men. I did not say, and I do not suggest, that people should be "forced" to "live without electricity, clean water and television". Further, our rainwater is perfectly clean, and much more palatable (and hundreds of dollars cheaper per quarter) than the town water which is available a bit closer to the city. It says a lot that you don't understand how easy it is to live simply, when one knows how to do so. Of course, it didn't stop there: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.
I did not mention "automobiles" or "gas stoves". More verballing. And for what it's worth, I know of at least three families that have chosen quite voluntarily to "live without" a refrigerator. It's not actually that difficult... But you persist in missing the point. If seven billion people, or nine billion people, all try to live as the Western world currently does, there will simply not be enough planet to go around, alternative fuels or no. There aren't that many choices available - either we keep our jackboots on the throats of the Third World, or we settle on a more equitable 'middle-road' of lifestyle, or we try to give every willing family in the world a widescreen TV and an SUV and then watch as the laws of physics and biology whack us in the solar plexus. Sooner or later that choice will have to be made - and the consequences faced......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.
As others have already pointed out, the developing world will do nothing if the Western world does not lead. Why should they? And with equivocators such as yourself making so much noise, the chance of Westerners actually working en masse to move forward to a more sustainable economic model is so slim as to make it almost inevitable that serious damage to human society and to the biosphere will occur. -
miffedmax at 01:38 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Wow. Thank you for an article than even a science/mathophobe like me could understand. -
John Hartz at 01:17 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
@jzk: The false dichotomies that you post ad naseum are patently absurd. The human race can individually and collectively take actions to curb GHG emissions and to mitigate the impacts of the warming that is currently built into the system. -
andylee at 01:12 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Terra and tera aren't quite the same thing! Semantically, Earth's geothermal flux would be 1 "Terrawatt", which is currently 47 terawatts. -
jzk at 00:54 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Daniel@44, This whole conversation assumes your premise, that we are on track for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. If we aren't then we don't even need to talk further. The point is that without participation from the developing world in a very meaningful way, CO2 emissions will not only continue to grow, but that growth will accelerate. That is a practical problem that you must face. I am not the emperor of China, so I have little say in what they do. [JH] SnippedResponse:[DB] Note: This comment was inadvertently deleted and has been restored.
-
DMCarey at 00:53 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
Quite possibly my favourite post on SkS to date. Very sophisticated science broken down into layman's terms that utterly refute denier's substitute arguments while clearly explaining the sheer scale of the problem. The Sydney Harbour heating example was particularly effective I believe (even to one who has never visited that side of the world). All told an outstanding post Glenn, I'll be sharing it with a few skeptics I regularly come into contact with -
Daniel Bailey at 00:49 AM on 16 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
You offer sophistry. You profess delay. You practice denial. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are that the world is warming, the primary forcing of temperatures over the past 40 years is from our fossil fuel emissions. Period. Again, lead or follow, but get out of the way. -
MA Rodger at 00:35 AM on 16 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
You do illustrate the relation correctly, but you somehow introduce an oblique into the preceding 1 Joule = 1 Watt.Second. Steve Case @3 Echoing Sceptical Wombat @5. You will note your IPCC figure of 142 ZJ for 700m depth is not much smaller than to 159 ZJ for 2000m. If you delve further into AR4 you will find the global surface temperature change commenserate with these ocean warmings is far from insignificant for climate or for us humans that exist within that climate. -
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
Prev 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 Next
