Recent Comments

Prev  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  Next

Comments 89301 to 89350:

89301. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:08 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy Crock #2: Jumping to Conclusions?
       @grypo A well. The last sentence (in my comments) is really too "condensed”. You're right. The papers cited by me was only served as proof - the reasons for objection - that is too weak account of the pre-2007 models, the natural factors of climate change (what says Christy) - particularly lags - by feedback associated to solar activity. Accordingly of too restrictive - use of "off-topic" on this site (in my opinion unnecessary makes it more difficult discussion), "I'm scared" to answer the second part of your doubts. But oh well - who does not risk ... and I'll try to as short as possible. If there is a lag in climate response - to changes in the TSI (cited paper offers c. 100 years, Swingedouwet al., 2010. 40-50 years - regional NH), it already (not just the future - the same claim the authors, writing about the present time: “... not yet have manifested itself fully ...”) we already have to do - with much more than we thought - the present result of such “lags”. And yet recently we had the greatest solar grand maximum from thousands years. Solar activity – the past 1200 years Steinhilber and Beer, 2011.: “The 9300-year long composite of solar activity (Steinhilber et al., 2008) shows that during the past six decades the Sun has been in a state of high solar activity compared to the entire period of 9300 years.” “Lags” in the response of climate to changes in TSI know (better) only recently. The most - comprehensively - it describes the paper: The influence of the de Vries (∼200-year) solar cycle on climate variations: Results from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link, Raspopov et al. 2006.: “An appreciable delay in the climate response to the solar signal can occur (up to 150 years). In addition, the sign of the climate response can differ from the solar signal sign. The climate response to long-term solar activity variations (from 10s to 1000s years) manifests itself in different climatic parameters, such as temperature, precipitation and atmospheric and oceanic circulation.” Varma et al. writing that - really - we do not know how to: “Since the reduction in TSI is only 0.15%, the global cooling effect is small and additional feedbacks are required to induce a significant change in the westerlies.” - yet having a significant impact on the global circulation. Still too poorly we known mechanisms for this significant change is responsible. Mid- to Late Holocene climate change: an overview, Wanner et al., 2008: „On decadal to multi-century timescales, a worldwide coincidence between solar irradiance minima, tropical volcanic eruptions and decadal to multi-century scale cooling events was not found..” And about these doubts says Christy. Estimating a 10% impact on the Nature - the Sun; of the current warming can be affected by the error about which too little is known - “jumping to Conclusions” - that to make strategic decisions in politics and to the economy.
       Moderator Response: [DB] The Wanner study you link does not support your position.
89302. Tom Curtis at 19:20 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       My apologies to the moderators.
89303. Tom Curtis at 19:10 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles @163: A) You assume that fossil fuel based power generation will not have its construction cost increased in a similar way. Without that assumption, you find that capital costs for both fossil fuel and renewable energy will be increased by a carbon price; but the fuel costs of fossil fuel power generation will also be increased, thus leaving renewables with a competitive advantage. Further, even is we just consider capital costs, renewables will still have a competitive advantage. Assume for example, that power costs rise 20% due to a carbon price, and that power constitutes 50% of the cost of capital costs. Then the capital costs of the renewables will rise by 10%, or half the increase of power costs for fossil fuels. So even treating capital costs alone, renewables will gain a competitive advantage from pricing carbon. And, the renewables can increase their competitive advantage by sourcing their energy costs from renewables. B) That various forms of energy are interchangeable was one of the great scientific discoveries of the 19th century. It has not been refuted. Therefore the interchangeability of power sources and fuels is a technical issue only. This certainly means that small countries such as Iceland cannot afford the capital cost of converting to an electrical vehicle economy when they would be effectively the only market for such vehicles. That does not mean such a conversion would be technically or economically unfeasible given a suitable mass market. C) It is well known that fossil fuel driven power generation is cheaper than alternatives if you do not price in externalities. It is also true that if you do price in externalities, most renewable energy sources are cheaper than fossil fuel use. The fact that negative externalities have until now not been priced into the market explains the current dominance of fossil fuels in the energy market. It is no reason to continue making others suffer for our cheap power. As my (B) and (C) provide simple explanations for your (b) and (a), you should now be happy. Why is it, then, that I suspect you will reject the simple explanations without due consideration?
       Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed tags.
89304. JMurphy at 18:25 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       Arkadiusz Semczyszak wrote : "He also wrote: "The lies of eco-warriors."" Getting back to the subject, especially regarding Christy's intellectual dishonesty, why is it that so-called skeptics prefer to listen to people like that who have such political/religious views which guide their opinions ? It's the same with the quote above, talking about "lies" and "eco-warriors" - it's almost as if the so-called skeptics need their 'experts' to have the same opinions as them, otherwise they don't trust them. In other words, they prefer subjective opinion (using emotive, political, aggressive language) over objective fact. And that is why many of them will never be persuaded to accept the reality of AGW...until one of their preferred 'experts' decides that going along with the consensus is a political imperative which will bring more benefits than negatives, and takes all his fans with him - who will then forget what happened in the past and carry on as if they always accepted AGW !
89305. Gilles at 18:21 PM on 12 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       ( -Snip- )
       Moderator Response: [DB] Portions of comment solely complaining about moderation snipped.
89306. Tom Curtis at 17:51 PM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       RSVP @41: No! That is not what I told you, and if you try to abuse my words by ignoring obvious factors in a complex system, that is your look out. Why you choose to neglect the fact that a substantial portion of heat in the arctic is transported there in the atmosphere and ocean from the tropics I do not know. Why you also choose to ignore the substantive absorption of energy by the ocean in the arctic in summer, with that heat being transfered to ice and ice shelf in part by evaporation warming the atmosphere which is then carried over ice and ice shelf by local winds, again I do not know. Why you choose to ignore the atmosphere being warmed directly by absorption of solar radiation (or reflected solar radiation) by clouds, again, I do not know. All I know is that you had to ignore an awful lot of facts to so misinterpret me.
89307. Gilles at 17:49 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Agnostic : there at least two flaws in your assertions : "Put another way, the cost of energy produced from renewable sources becomes cheaper relative to that produced from FF. " just think of what really makes the cost of renewable sources. It's not the fuel, because it's free. So it's all the rest. But what is the rest? what do you need to build a windmill? or a big dam? well you need steel or carbon fibers, copper, concrete, engines, roads, a number of various materials and commodities that are all extracted, processed, and carried by cheap fossil fuels. We're constantly bathing in a sea of cheap materials that seem totally naturally exist - nobody cares about the availability of steel, rubbers, paintings, asphalt, and so on.. I could cite you dozens of products that are necessary to build any power plant - and *their cost are directly impacted by the cost of FF*. So thinking that making FF more expensive would favor renewables is just wrong on this aspect. A second factor you think to totally ignore is that various form of energy are *not* interchangeable , and even all form of electric power are not equivalent. I do not know any electrical network that is not powered mainly by a non-intermittent source , as FF, nuclear or hydroelectricity - nowhere in the world. I have some reluctance to admit that no country, including those totally deprived of FF, would have applied an easy solution to an old problem. Thinking it is just because of FF lobbies doesn't obviously fit to the case of hydroelectricity, which has indeed be used when possible - so obviously WHEN renewable were usable , they have been used. There is no problem in powering a country with water, when possible, and companies can make big profit by selling hydroelectricity just like any other commodity. So you have to find another explanation for: a) why only hydroelectricity , and no other renewable source, has been used as a only source of electric power, in the whole world, despite huge differences in natural and social conditions b) why even those countries that have largely more hydroelectricity than they need haven't succeeded in replacing totally FF . If you can offer me a simple explanation of these two facts, I will be happy.
89308. Tom Curtis at 17:32 PM on 12 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Ken Lambert @60, I have consistently calculated the effects of the average change of sea ice extent between 1979 and 2010. The following graph from Tamino shows the sea ice area, which is slightly different but exhibits similar changes over time: You will clearly sea that the 2010 sea ice area through the summer months is from two to three million square kilometers less than it was in the late 1970s. On the other hand, every year there is an approximately eight million square kilometer reduction in sea ice area from the maximum around mid March to the minimum around mid September. That eight million square kilometer annual fluctuation drives the annual reduction in sea ice, and the annual reduction in sea ice thickness of about one meter across the whole ice pack. It is the reason the sea ice minimum is in mid-September rather than closer to the peak insolation in mid-July. That effect would have been operating for as long as we have had arctic sea ice, but it cannot lead to a runaway effect because the winter months eliminate the insolation that drives it. In contrast, the 2 million square kilometer additional reduction in sea ice extent since 1979 did not exist before, and is an additional forcing of arctic melt back. As you can see, that additional reduction in sea ice is a new feature, not having been observed before 1950, and not distinguishable from background noise before 1960. You will also note that as the additional melt back is more extensive in summer than in winter, in the past the variation between summer and winter was about half what it is now, with a consequently much reduced summer feedback of the seasonal melt. If you are observant, you will also notice that the two million square kilometer figure I use is very conservative, with the actual figure being close to three million for sea ice area, and four million for sea ice extent (reduction from 1979 only). That is, of course, in keeping with my intention to give you everything you could desire to sustain your theory (which collapses for all that generosity).
89309. Riduna at 17:13 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles @ 159 If you price carbon and impose that price on the top 1,000 Australian companies directly responsible for CO2 emission, the FF sourced energy they produce becomes more expensive. Put another way, the cost of energy produced from renewable sources becomes cheaper relative to that produced from FF. In a bid to curb CO2 emissions, the carbon price (whether imposed as a tax, an ETS or a hybrid) is increased until a point is reached where, relative to the cost of producing energy from renewable sources, energy produced from FF is more expensive. When that stage is reached, FF sourced energy will cease to be used. Most businesses do not care where their energy needs come from, provided it is the cheapest available, is available 24/7 and is priced so as to enable them to compete internationally. The technology already exists for Australia to produce all of its 24/7 energy needs from renewable sources. So, you ask, why is it not being done now? Ans: because it is more expensive than energy produced from FF sources. However, increasing the price of carbon encourages emitters to reduce less of it and at the same time makes FF energy relatively more expensive than renewable energy. Further, the government intends as part of its carbon pricing policy, to provide assistance to trade exposed industries, enabling them to continue trading competitively. Government also intends to use part of the proceeds of carbon pricing to provide assistance to and otherwise stimulate development of new technology enabling cheaper, more reliable production of energy from renewable sources. A common misconception is that the technology of to-day is the technology of tomorrow but this is simply not so. It advances. To deny that FF will ever cease to be used for production of energy, as you seem to, is of course a nonsense.
89310. Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 16:57 PM on 12 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       Marcus see link (of Wikipedia) proposed by dana1981: “Przemyslaw Mastalerz - author of more than 120 scientific publications , three textbooks of organic chemistry ... He also wrote: "The lies of eco-warriors." And me is “a shame” that 10 years I taught students about the dangers of DDT residues - based on defective scientific papers ...
89311. Tom Curtis at 16:43 PM on 12 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Ryan Starr @137, I want to clearly note that there has now been a change in the logic of your argument. Whereas previously you were arguing that the chart together with accompanying information did not give the reader grounds to suspect who the chart was constructed, you are now arguing that some readers may over interpret the chart, and consequently discount relevant information provided by Jones along with the chart. Well certainly. Having debated creationists I know there is no limit to the bizzare ways in which people will interpret or neglect even the clearest statement. I will go further, Jones caption is not as clear as it could have been (with little extra effort) in explaining how the chart was formed. In other words, Jones did not follow best practice in developing the WMO chart and accompanying caption. But if that is the basis of your argument, the logic has shifted from "Jones withheld relevant information in a manner likely to deceive, and therefore his actions were deliberately deceptive" to "Jones did not follow best practice, and therefore his actions were deliberately deceptive." The latter is, of course, a complete non-sequaiter, but it is all that you have evidence to support.
89312. Gilles at 16:42 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dan, I'd like to ask a simple technical question to Mr Jaccard : does he know technically how to build a cheap windmill and connect it to a cheap electrical network without cheap fossil fuels? that's not an economist issue, that's an engineer issue.
89313. Riduna at 16:35 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dan @ 155 You are quite right – there are problems with an ETS, as discovered by the Rudd Government which put forward proposals seen by many as flawed, particularly regarding the issues you have raised. The result was rejection of the legislation and determination of the Gillard government to get the design of a cap and trade right and fully explained to the electorate before presenting it to Parliament. adelady @ 156 Yes, I have read your comments on an ETS before and I understand your views. However, the primary purpose of pricing carbon whether by a tax or cap and trade is: 1. To reduce carbon emissions and 2. To develop and replace FF with clean energy technology as rapidly as possible. A carbon tax is deficient in doing this since it excludes compulsion or penalty for GHG emissions, government pricing is only maintained at an effective rate if this suits political ideology of the day (imagine what Abbott would do to it!) and excludes the market from pricing carbon depending on cap changes. Bureaucrats are not best placed – or informed – to specify price, for either an ETS or a Tax. Tom Curtis @ 157 As I note above, getting the design of a cap and trade right and fully explained to the electorate – what Rudd/Wong failed to do – is important. You suggest it can provide for a hybrid Carbon Tax/ETS and I agree. I think this is what Gillard has in mind – a hybrid which combines the best of both systems and prevents the pitfalls which adelady rightly sees as loopholes for inefficiency and corruption and the measures which you regard as desirable. My hope is that the only involvement of government in pricing carbon is to set an annual floor price and that a Carbon Tax transits quickly to something with teeth and realistic reduction targets – and 5% reduction by 2020 is barely tokenistic.
89314. Gilles at 16:24 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Sphericae : I would modulate some parts of your presentation of what I'm thinking, but generally speaking, you got my point - it's that industrial civilization is not a mere cultural event due to our intelligence and our discovery of fundamental laws (which are indeed a key point), but also the by-product of the availability of abundant cheap FF, and that a tax will never change this feature. The implicit assumption behind the idea of a tax is that, as many of you seem to think, we could obviously build the same society without FF, weren't some little obstacles, prejudices, and lobbies , that could be easily overcome with some political decisions like a tax. (I hope that I describe correctly your general opinion). My opinion is different : it is that we *cannot* sustain the industrial civilization without a minimum amount of FF (of course this does *not* mean that we can't improve their use and reduce somewhat their consumption), and that the minimum amount is enough to be exhausted in one century or so at the current rate. I understand you can disagree with that - after all we're here to discuss. But I don't understand that you try to alter my opinion or my motivations, and emit judgements that would be considered as an insult by any normal individual. I am *not* working for any industry, I am *not* belonging to a right wing party or even voting for them, I am *not* defending the inequality of incomes - all that is totally irrelevant to my position. I am a mere academic scientist, with a modest salary, I live probably with a much less carbon footprint than the average american, and I just try to work on these problems like on any scientific one : building what I think being the most exact theory from known facts. I may do mistakes, but I don't allow you to doubt from my intellectual integrity.
89315. Bob Lacatena at 16:22 PM on 12 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       60, Ken, Ummm... what the heck are you talking about? Do you understand the current post at all? Are you really that confused?
89316. Bob Lacatena at 16:16 PM on 12 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       222, DB, Okay, that was scary. Please don't do that just before I go to bed.
89317. Bob Lacatena at 16:12 PM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       24, RSVP,

       Glaciers are generally white, and should therefore be least affected by IR, and yet these are the hailed global warming canaries. What gives?

       To give a more direct answer to that specific question, no, the glaciers aren't (and don't need to be) melting as a direct effect of IR to be the GW canaries. If you go back and read my comment 27 about the basic mechanics behind a glacier, you will realize that glaciers are very dependent upon two factors, precipitation above the snowline, and where the snowline actually is at the tail of the glacier. It's actually more complicated than that (as there are many factors that affect the speed of flow of a glacier, etc.), but for our purposes this is good. Year to year or month to month or day to day the snowline is going to change somewhat, but not enough to impact a mighty glacier, not unless the change is consistent. But if the change is consistent, if temperatures have really warmed by X˚ above what they used to be, then the snowline on average is going to retreat in concert with the temperature change. That in turn means that the tail of the glacier is going to retreat. So a retreating glacier is a sign of a regular, ongoing, local rise in temperature. A lot of retreating glaciers, all over the world, are the sign of a lot of regular, ongoing, local rises in temperature, which in aggregate equate to a regular, ongoing, global rise in temperature. And that's what makes them the canary in the coal mine. They're not canaries for anthropogenic or CO₂ induced warming per se, but they are an inarguable sign of any global warming (as if the satellite record, land based observational records, ocean records, changes in the Arctic ice melt seasons and extents, and changes in flora and fauna behavior due to earlier springs and later falls weren't already enough other canaries to convince most reasonable people).
89318. Gilles at 16:04 PM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Muoncounter , maybe we should spend a little time to discuss what is a "fact" and what is a "wishful thinking" - obviously we disagree somewhat on the definition since you present me what you think being "facts" - that are not for me. " Where the current price is only $20 more than the 1979 peak? " because higher prices do provoke recessions that destroy demand, and so you have a natural limit that cannot be exceeded (that's the essence of the origin of peak ! you *must* destroy demand at some point). The fact is this price has been reached twice in some years, without any violent geopolitic event like in 1973 or in 1979 - and without any warning or any forecast of any people you seem to believe in. Again, the main quality of a scientific paper is not the number of citations or the name of the authors - it is its predictive power.
89319. Bob Lacatena at 15:58 PM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       41, RSVP, In a way, yes. The way you present it is muddled and confused, and full of absolutes as if the system were as simple as adding salt to water and measuring the change in boiling point. But... The ice is melting partly due to heat absorbed from visible light (most, but not all, of which is reflected -- that which is not reflected is absorbed as heat). It's also melting partly due to the air temperature above the ice. The fact that the ice reflects visible light has little to do with the air around you being warmer, as air is primarily transparent to visible light (with the exception of moist air, but as you are at altitude over Greenland, it is likely to be dry there). To understand this properly, you need to study a bit about quantum mechanics, molecular degrees of freedom (i.e. rotational, vibrational and translational energy), and a bunch of other topics in physical chemistry and atmospheric physics. It's not as hard as it sounds, though, outside of the fact that no one (that I know of, yet) has really put all of it together in one place. You have to look around, and learn bits and pieces here and there. But it's no where near as magical (or confusing, or contrived) as you seem to feel (based on the tone of your post). Try educating yourself thoroughly on how energy is transferred into and through the atmosphere, and this will make sense.
89320. Daniel Bailey at 15:42 PM on 12 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       

       That was a peek into the future; now for a look back (that pesky albedo flip taking shape, I bet):

       http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003679/autumnTrend_28yr_IPOD.m4v

       The Yooper

89321. Ken Lambert at 14:16 PM on 12 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Tom Curtis #59 I will check your calculations and assumptions myself when I have time. I am intrigued by your admission that: "I have not included in my calculations any of the effect of the original CO2 forcing. As is well known, this has a stronger effect at higher latitudes than as lower, so would tend to reinforce this effect. On the other hand, the water vapour feedback is stronger in the tropics. The strength of neither is relevant to the issue of whether the change in albedo due to arctic ice melt results in sufficient additional energy absorbed to be compatible with Flanner's calculated ice albedo forcing in the Arctic." If that is the case with AG (mainly CO2 effects) excluded from your calculations, then would not Flanner's ice albedo forcing apply to any summer in the Arctic? That would mean this summer, next summer or a summer in the past - 200 years ago for example. Any nominal period of Flanner summers (30 - 50 years?)would eliminate the summer ice permanently. In that case why do we have summer ice in the Arctic at all?
89322. RSVP at 14:10 PM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Tom Curtis 38 "most heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface is via back radiation" So 1000 ft above an ice field (maybe in a balloon over Greenland), all I see is ice from horizon to horizon. The ice is melting now due to back radiation (according to this brilliant theory). Furthermore, I am being told that ice reflects mostly visible light, so the air I am surrounded by is now slightly warmer due to the IR coming off the ice below me interacting with the anthropogenic CO2 content. This same heat then makes its way back down, and melts the ice that much more. This, unfortunately, is what you are telling me.
89323. RyanStarr at 13:11 PM on 12 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       Tom @ 130. The chart clearly labels each series as a proxy only. A reader of that caption could be forgiven for thinking the bolded quote is an error because it conflicts with what the chart itself purports to show. "Along with" would usually mean in parallel with, next to each other, not spliced together with only one source indicated. Dikran @ 135. Lets say I want to know how accurately the proxies trace the instrument record. How do I get an estimation of that from what is provided? How could I receive any impression at all that there is such a thing as a "divergence problem" from what is provided? Chart plus caption. ("the caption gives you the information you need to find out everything you want to know if you can be bothered to look.")
89324. Tom Curtis at 12:35 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       adelady, current debates in the Australian Parliament show a Carbon Tax will have the same issues of exemptions and compensations, and will need the same detailed scrutiny of an ETS (or tradable voucher)
89325. Tom Curtis at 12:30 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dan Moutal & Agnostic, the features of a carbon tax and an ETS can be designed so as to have almost identical outcomes. Specifically, a Carbon Tax can include a nominal target for emissions set by regulation, with the feature that is the target is exceeded, the Carbon Tax automatically increases by an amount which depends on how much it was exceeded. If emissions are under the nominal target, the tax would be reduced by a similar mechanism. The result would be that in the long term the Carbon Tax would approach a value which results in the target being met consistently. Clearly an ETS can be designed with a nominal price for carbon with the number of permits varied depending on how the market price varied compared to the nominal price. In that way the ETS would behave like a tax for abatement purposes. Because of this, the difference between an ETS and a Carbon Tax really comes down to the desirability of tradable credits. Clearly, issues of market manipulation aside, tradable credits are preferable to a non-tradable tax because: 1) The market mechanism ensures a minimum cost for industries which have difficulty with abatement, and a maximum incentive to abate for those who find it easy (in that they not only avoid a cost, but can gain income by abatement); and 2) International trade in carbon credits is a natural mechanism to subsidize abatement strategies in third world nations. Further, the possibility of a trade in carbon credits provides a substantial incentive for third world nations to sign up to carbon reduction treaties. Against this is the issue of market manipulation potentially making an ETS less, rather than more efficient economically. It seems to me that this possibility can be largely restricted by issuing a small number of credits periodically (weekly, or monthly) and giving credits a restricted "used by" date (15 months at most). With those conditions a speculator cannot corner the market because of the frequent issuance of new credits, and is restricted in their ability to stockpile credits because they become less valuable with time due to the "used by" date. Given that, an ETS with these features would be preferable to a Carbon Tax. However, I have been thinking lately that a tradable voucher system might be better. In this system, the government issues free of charge a number of carbon vouchers, distributed according to a fixed formulas. The issuing should be periodic, and the vouchers should have a limited time in which they can be used, for reasons given above. They should also be tradable through a government agency which takes a small commission on each scheme to fund administration. Emitting CO2 without a voucher would attract a fine based on some multiple (greater than one) of the highest voucher price traded in the last 3 months. Because the fine is set by the market, it is always better to buy a voucher than to cop a fine. (To prevent a price blow out, an initial cap on the fine may be desirable.) The advantage of this scheme over an ETS is that compensation is built in by the distribution mechanism. Consequently there is not need for the large churn of funds through government hands involved in an ETS. What do you think?
89326. adelady at 12:16 PM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Thanks for that Dan. I much, much prefer a carbon tax system. Firstly because we know advanced economies have long experience and established mechanisms for imposing and collecting simple taxes. They also have little difficulty with universal payment systems, like pensions and various benefits, easily converted or added to for carbon compensation/ benefit/ dividend or whatever it's to be called. I dislike ETS proposals because, everywhere I look, I see people suggesting exemptions for this and exclusions for that - and a whole new bureaucratic machinery for implementing, regulating and reporting all the bits and pieces involved. I realise that it's probably not as bad that, but the problems in Europe suggest to me that these schemes require a lot more detailed supervision than some people think. Let's face it, our "market-based" trading in convevtional goods and services needs oversight from competition and consumer watchdogs of various kinds. Anything new that regulators are unfamiliar with provides opportunities for the unscrupulous to get in quickly to get a profit before all the unforeseen loopholes are closed off.
89327. Dan Moutal at 11:57 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Agnostic Thanks for opening up that can of worms:) Actually I expected the ETS (or cap and trade) vs carbon tax angle to be brought up sooner. Again the Jaccard interview posted in comment #128 (especially the first one) goes into this somewhat. And as a bonus this is MUCH more on topic than the rabbit hole Gilles was leading us though The first thing to realize is that both an ETS and a carbon tax have the same goal. To price GHG emissions. The key difference is in how they achieve that. The second thing to realize is that the cap in cap and trade (or ETS) is not really a cap at all. It is possible for companies to emit without a permit, but they would be fined for the privilege. The value of this fine would essentially be the upper limit of the price on emissions. Why would anyone pay more than that for a permit? So one can reasonably expect emissions to go over the cap in many situations. But that isn't any worse than the carbon tax proposal. So why am I skeptical of ETS? Well for one they are much more complicated. This makes it easier for cleaver lobbyists to ensure there are some well hidden loopholes. Then there is the whole mess of offsets. (don't get me started). They sound like a good idea in principle, but in practice there exists all sorts of problems with them. Just take a look at the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism. And finally there is the whole problem of money crossing national boundaries. This isn't automatically a problem, but it does complicate thing a lot. (in fact rich countries probably should help out the poor countries who haven't caused the problem and will be most impacted by it). And this is one of they key areas that continuously holds up progress at UN climate meetings. All that being said, ETS policies in theory at least can achieve the same goal. I just feel that in practice they will be a more costly and complicated solution. But since at the international level ETS schemes are all that is really being talked about I hope I am wrong
89328. Marcus at 11:44 AM on 12 April 2011
       Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
       Arkadiusz needs to learn some basic chemistry before he starts mouthing off about PCB's & other harmful chemicals. If he bothered to check, he'd see that (a) dioxins & DDT are made up of 2 benzene rings and, as Benzene rings can easily slip between the base-pairs of DNA, they can upset DNA replication which-in turn-can lead to cancer & other mutagenic conditions & (b) PCB's have an active site that looks-& acts-identically to the female sex hormone oestrogen, thus why its linked to male infertility. So, as we see, the dangers posed by these chemicals have nothing to do with scaremongering, & *everything* to do with the basic science of how they chemically interact with living tissue. Still, I've never known contrarians to be too interested in basic science-not when it gets in the way of corporate profiteering.
89329. scaddenp at 11:43 AM on 12 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Daniel, how are you supposed to be credible when you insist that Stern report only lists harmful effects when someone has pointed you to chapter and verse showing that this is not true? And by the way, I agree with the conclusions of your paper - but I am unqualified to comment on the critique. Still waiting for that better analysis.
89330. scaddenp at 11:34 AM on 12 April 2011
       Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
       Well scientist to me who someone who investigates nature via the scientific method. For an amateur to get some notice would require publishing some peer-reviewed research. However, that said, I would trust someone with deep education and practice in climate science over an amateur, but hey, if your disagreement is based on sound, consistent science and backed by data, then go ahead and publish. I'd read it.
89331. muoncounter at 10:44 AM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles#171: "I was in Denmark last year and I didn't see any electrical vehicles, and I don't think there are a lot in Israël" Sadly, you are running fact-free once again. Israeli Batteries Will Charge Up Mia Electric Vehicles in Europe Europe-wide Green eMotion Initiative To Pave the Way for Electromobility Please bear in mind the following are rhetorical questions, as I have no particular interest in your replies. And discussion of these items is clearly off-topic for this thread. If you insist on turning every conversation to the world oil supply, you really should find another forum. "Laherrère and Campbell in 1998. I was very impressed by the visionary prediction that prices of oil should climb to the sky ten years after ... that's facts !" Climb to the sky? Is that an inflation-adjusted sky? Where the current price is only $20 more than the 1979 peak? "And that oil would peak around 2010" How did you establish this peak so quickly? "the natural depletion of cheap fossil resources" Yes, we should just wait and see. A sound economic and social policy, guaranteed to let the haves continue to have and the have-nots disappear from view.
89332. Riduna at 10:40 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       I would hope that the Australian government would learn from the BC experience - and not introduce a Carbon Tax. It is true that a Carbon Tax can and will reduce FF consumption if it is set high enough. It will stimulate development and use of energy produced from renewable sources and it will encourage more efficient use and reduction of energy produced from FF, thereby curbing GHG pollution. No less importantly it can be targeted so that it applies only to those who are directly responsible for GHG pollution. Maybe that will be the experience in BC? The problem is that imposition of a carbon tax does not result in these outcomes being assured – only encouraged and then only to a limited, poorly targeted extent. The Australian government proposes to introduce a Carbon Tax in 2012 – but only as a temporary measure pending finalisation of the design of an ETS. Presumably this is to demonstrate to the electorate that pricing Carbon does not cause catastrophic damage to the economy, our standards of living and end of the world as we know it, as Opposition Leader Abbott and vested interests would have us believe. The Australian Prime Minister has told us that a Carbon Tax will be applied in a way which ensures that monies raised by it will be applied to compensating lower income households, export vulnerable businesses and, importantly, stimulating the development and use of new technology aimed at producing energy with low and no GHG emissions. The PM also tells us that she intends to follow the example set by most European countries and move to an ETS, though not as rapidly as most would like. Why the move to an ETS? Because, unlike a Carbon Tax where the price of carbon is determined by government in the hope that emissions reduction will follow, an ETS enables the market to determine, review and continually revise the price of carbon in response to GHG reduction targets specified by government. The result is that the outcomes encouraged by a Carbon Tax are guaranteed by an ETS and, no less importantly, the price of carbon is determined by an informed market rather than a less informed bureaucracy. In summary, an ETS is more cost efficient and effective in achieving emissions reduction and development of clean energy technology. For these reasons one would hope that in both Australia and BC, the transition from Carbon Tax to ETS will be rapid and smooth.
89333. KR at 10:07 AM on 12 April 2011
       Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
       Bruce Frykman - Scientist refers to someone who has invested time and effort in education and study on a particular subject, with the intent to extend the knowledge in that field. Please see your favorite dictionary. I'm sorry I cannot find the exact quote at the moment, but: There are lots of bright people in the world. If you, as a bright person digging into a field of study, conclude that everyone else who has studied the subject for >100 years is wrong, you may be correct. But it's far more likely that you've simply missed something... The same holds for the commentators (and I would include many on the various blogs) - the commentators not working in the field may be correct in asserting that the experts are wrong, but again... they may very well be incorrect, and those who listen to the experts are right after all. I'm reminded of one of the posters John posted from the Brisbane rally:
89334. Bern at 09:58 AM on 12 April 2011
       SeaMonster: an awesome new blog about the oceans
       Steve L: perhaps when it starts eating the bottom out of their tinny? ;-) But seriously, good luck with the blog. It'll be nice if you can build a communication channel with the general public.
89335. Gilles at 09:47 AM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       164 : Murphy i'm skeptical about predictions that don't seem to be confirmed by facts, and I believe in predictions that seem to be confirmed by facts. Example of the first kind : "Certainly both Israel and Denmark are investing in the battery changing technology which I think will revolutionise road transport as the problem of range is now solved." Well I was in Denmark last year and I didn't see any electrical vehicles, and I don't think there are a lot in Israël - also I admit that Israël could be one of the best places since nobody can travel a long distance with a car - fortunately not a lot of places in the world like that. So for the moment - no facts. Example of the second kind : "the end of cheap oil" - written by Laherrère and Campbell in 1998. I was very impressed by the visionary prediction that prices of oil should climb to the sky ten years after - a fact that no agency had predicted. And that oil would peak around 2010 - no SRES scenario said that - and yet it seems to happen. Yes, that's facts ! Spherica : "His position there is that a tax won't work, and nothing will work, so don't do anything." Nothing will work for what ? it it is to reduce CO2 emission, yes, something will work : the natural depletion of cheap fossil resources - and no swallow, either african or european, will have to experience a 750 ppm CO2 atmosphere. And generally, I appreciate the kind of answer you try to bring - seems you don't really have something else in your pockets - I assume again that this post will be considered as unacceptable given the general quality of the previous ones !
89336. Bruce Frykman at 09:45 AM on 12 April 2011
       Upcoming book: Climate Change Denial by Haydn Washington and John Cook
       Which authoritarian body conveys the title of "scientist" and decides whom may or may not speak with authority regarding the concept called man made climate change? Would the word of a big shot at the IPCC count for more than some mere amateur who dares to disagree with him? I would really like to get this clarified
89337. mspelto at 09:44 AM on 12 April 2011
       Zebras? In Greenland? Really?
       First in real terms if you have ever been on the same ice covered pond on a -10 C day and on a 0 C day you will notice a difference in the hardness of the ice. Ice is hard in both cases, but is more deformable the warmer it gets. Ice that is -20 C is found to be 10-15 times as hard as ice that is at 0 C. This does not mean it falls apart, just that it deforms more easily. Now since most ice motion occurs near the base on an ice sheet and for the GIS this ice is mainly close to or at the pressure melting point, the impact is not as large as you might first think. The cold ice is more in the middle of the depth profile where because of much reduced pressure, deformation forces are less. In the basic Glen's flow law of ice there is a parameter (A) that is really a measure of the hardness of ice. This parameter depends on temperature, impurities in the ice and the degree to which crystal orientation is preferential to the main stress direction. The law is Strain rate=A(shear stress)3rd. For a further detailed discussion with examples of the depth velocity profile and the depth temperature profile see Copenhagen Universities Centre for Ice And Climate
89338. Marcus at 09:06 AM on 12 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "the lack of cheap energy in the near future" Its worth noting that, even without a carbon tax in place, the above comment is becoming increasingly untrue. I've looked at a number of estimates for energy generation costs from *new* power stations, & they always look remarkably similar. Coal & Nuclear are about $0.04c to $0.07c per kw-h; Hydro is about $0.03c to $0.05c per kw-h; Wind is around $0.05c to $0.08c per kw-h; Sewer/Landfill gas is around $0.08c to $0.10c per kw-h; Solar Thermal is around $0.08c to $0.12c per kw-h; Geothermal is around $0.06c to $0.12c per kw-h-& Solar PV is the only outlier-at around $0.22c per kw-h. Of course, that's generation cost *only*, & doesn't include the costs of transmission & distribution or-to the best of my knowledge-the cost of various externalities (not even including CO2 emissions). These are all costs that impact coal & nuclear far more than the other energy generation technologies I've mentioned-as the other technologies are more scalable &-therefore-can distribute energy over a much smaller distance, & with little or no harmful emissions. Even so, a fairly moderate carbon tax *should* make the already cost-competitive renewable energy technologies even *more* attractive, as would removal of some of the many subsidies that the fossil fuel sector have enjoyed for close to a century.
89339. Alec Cowan at 08:58 AM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Nice post, but I'm not sure I agree with condone innumeracy and asystemicity and flatter the public by offering a "popular science" explanation. I mean, nobody feels belittled because they say he or she cannot perform that brain surgery with delicate hand and in full knowledge, so why a decent innumerate would complain? The energy budget deals with figures, and the figures given tell us about a net absorb of 0.9W/m². A quick calculation tells us that if absorbed only by the oceans, the temperature of waters would raise some 0.003°C by year. That's why part of the imbalances of a whole score could hide unless systematic and exhaustive records of deep ocean waters' temperatures are kept -that is the travesty; that is what Trenberth was talking about-. On the other hand, if the same net absorption of 0.9W/m² was dealt only by the atmosphere, temperature would raise 0.007°C by day! That's the key buffering effect of Earth oceans that together could add to a moon with more than 1100km of diameter. It's the stirs and shakes of such inertial mass which allows to speculate with decadal oscillations and reversals of trends by using any measurement, correlating any pair of variables and letting that any central limit theory do the trick. Our resident fifth columnists --dressed in day-glo clothes-- simply put the important aside and start their duels of nouns -glaciers and canaries- or adverbs -nobody knows "exactly"-. Words like a waterfall, designed to hide the total lack of figures.
89340. e at 08:57 AM on 12 April 2011
       2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
       LJ, Thank you for taking the time to detail and formalize your thinking. There are several things wrong with your logic (none of which follow from standard GHG physics): One big issue is you are incorrectly defining the time to equilibrium. You wrote here: When the input flux 235 W/m2 SW to the surface equals surface output flux 235 W/m2 LW the earth SURFACE is at equilibrium (not the entire system) This is incorrect. Equilibrium only exists when there are no longer any temperature changes. The fact that the surface is emitting the same flux as the overall system input is not particularly relevant in this example, since equilibrium is not reached at that point. Nothing in the system will be in equilibrium until the net output of the system matches the net input of the system. That should be intuitively easy to understand, if input and output are different, then energy will either be accumulating or depleting. Nothing is changing if input and output are the same. Using your terms, you are looking for the point in time when A_U = I. The other problem is that you are mixing up the effective emissivity model with a simple grey slab model as depicted in Prof Yu's lecture. These two models are describing the system in very different ways, and cannot be mixed and matched in the simple fashion you are attempting. The grey slab model assumes that each component in the system is a blackbody (among other assumptions) and describes the flow of energy between individual components in the system. The effective emissivity model completely abstracts away the internal exchanges of energy that are illustrated in the grey slab model. When someone says that the effective emissivity of the earth is .612, the value .612 already captures all the internal behaviors of the system. It applies to the system as a whole, it would not make any sense to insert this back into the grey slab model as the emissivity of the atmosphere. I would suggest starting by clarifying exactly which model you are using to draw your conclusions. If you're using effective emissivity, then it is simply a matter of plugging the emissivity into the Stefan-Boltzmann law and computing the temperature that results. If you are using the grey slab model, then you would calculate the result as given by the equations in professor Yu's lecture slides.
89341. Tom Curtis at 08:32 AM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Jay Cadbury, we can conclude that only in the same way that I can conclude that because philosopher's cannot show that inductive evidence cannot lead to deductively certain conclusions, I may be a brain in a vat. Or for a more modern reference, that we can conclude that we may live in the Matrix. There is a technical possibility that the consensus theory on global warming is in error; but showing that it is cannot be done by simply ignoring the mountain of evidence showing the theory to be true.
89342. scaddenp at 08:28 AM on 12 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Daniel, kind of the reason why we have the IPCC. So experts evaluate the evidence. Actually debate about a contradictory economic report would be a very good thing. I'm prepared to be convinced. Its just that I havent seen any so I make my judgement on the basis what studies have been done on the subject rather than just guessing. Now where is the contradictory scientific analysis by the way? (But please tell me about it in a appropriate thread). So far I see peer-reviewed published science in one corner and blog disinformation in the other.
89343. Bob Lacatena at 08:28 AM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       DB, KR, I was actually thinking, in the end, more along the lines of this: Internet Bridge Troll
89344. Tom Curtis at 08:26 AM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       RSVP @30, your statement is factually incorrect, but I'll interpret that as a dig at the fact that, ignoring precipitation, most heat transfer from the atmosphere to the surface is via back radiation rather than via collisions between molecules (conduction). (None is via convection.) Well, I'll happily concede that my phrase, "Glaciers are warmed primarily by ambient air temperature" misses the point. The rest of my comment stands, however, and you are still wrong.
89345. daniel maris at 08:24 AM on 12 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Well - since you guys love papers, here's one from a Yale University person who shares my concerns about the Stern report and who specifically states that he lists only harmful effects, exactly what I was complaining about. http://environment.yale.edu/files/biblio/YaleFES-00000260.pdf
89346. Bob Lacatena at 08:22 AM on 12 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       168, KR, Funny (to me)... but probably too off-color for SS. The unwary should be forewarned...
89347. daniel maris at 08:19 AM on 12 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Scaddenp, I make my own judgements, just as you and others do - because you can't believe ALL of the contradictory scientfic analyses. If I was to dig out a report that said the benefits of global warming would outweigh the costs, woudl you believe it, even if produced by an eminent economist? Of course not. You'd argue every point, just as I have argued points Stern makes. But I wasn't really arguing that the cost benefit analysis of global warming was positive, it was that Stern was sloppy in his approach. I think you and others here just underestimate the complexity of the problem here. This is not say something like the link between air pollution and lung diseases or between CFCs and the ozone layer.
89348. Tom Curtis at 08:14 AM on 12 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       daniel maris @94 - sea level rises over the last century have averaged around 2 to 2.5 mm a year, which over a century is about 200 to 250 mm, or only 10 to 12.5% of typical tidal variations and less than variations in high tide levels due to the relative position of the sun and the moon. For most peoples life time, the differences is about a third of that. Just how observant are you claiming to be that you expect that to have a discernible effect? Particularly in Britain, most of whose coastline is rising as a result of isostatic rebound, so would have experienced a smaller rise, and potentially a local fall in sea level? In contrast to the slow rises of the 20th century, however, those of the coming 100 years will be significantly faster - 4 times faster by your preferred estimate - and potentially twenty times faster (if Hansen is correct).
89349. Tom Curtis at 07:59 AM on 12 April 2011
       Muller Misinformation #1: confusing Mike's trick with hide the decline
       johnd @134, actually they are. The temperature is a physical property at a variety of locations. An individual instrumental record is a number of readings of an instrument designed to measure temperature - but those reading also measure other things as well. They measure the level of inebriation of the record keeper, their aptness to make readings, their punctuality in taking readings. If you are interested in changes in the global mean temperature, they also measure other things as well. They measure the UHI effect, and the less mentioned urban particulate emission cooling effect. They measure changes in site location, and poor site location. They measure relative differences in distance between sites. And they measure changing capabilities and techniques of measurement over time. These are all measured because the instrumental record contains information about all these things, just as it contains the information about the global mean surface temperature. In principle, all of these factors could be predicted from a careful statistical analysis of the temperature record. In practice, most of them cannot be because the effects are too small relative to the background noise. But that makes all of these confounding factors when it comes to measuring the global mean surface temperature. It is because of these confounding factors that the various indices of GMST never quite agree on what it is. So, for both "reconstructions" and "instrumental record" you have a series of actual measurements of dO18 concentrations, or lengths of a column of mercury or alcohol, or of changes in resistance in a wire. All these measurements are highly correlated with temperature - some more so than others; but all have confounding factors. And all are given a statistical treatment to determine a target measure. For the instrumental record the measured values are much more highly correlated to temperature than is typical of historical reconstructions; and the locations of the records more numerous and more widely spread. That makes the resultant reconstruction far more accurate than those in historical reconstructions, but that is a practical difference, not an epistemological difference. So, John, you are wrong. Unless you where trying to make only an empty semantic point. (Even then you are wrong, but the point is so empty as to not be worth disputing.)
89350. Bibliovermis at 07:33 AM on 12 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Currency bills have to be individually measured in heigth, length & width before it can be determined that one is missing? DNFTT.

Prev  1779  1780  1781  1782  1783  1784  1785  1786  1787  1788  1789  1790  1791  1792  1793  1794  Next