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. Dan Moutal at 16:20 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Gilles " With a finite, bell-shaped resource, decreasing the consumption at some time doesn't insure that the integral will decrease, because the spared FF will simply be burnt later" Again this assumes that some countries will not implement policy to reduce GHG emissions (be it a tax or something else). If they do, and that policy is effective, we can expect the integrated quantity of GHG emissions to decrease. If China (for example) does nothing, ever, then that wont be the case, and you would be correct. But I doubt anyone here thinks otherwise.
89302. Marcus at 16:19 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "If you want this comparison : If cigarettes were a finite resource and if we only taxed them, but not banned them, then the total number of smoked cigarettes would be exactly the same, whatever the tax is : just the initial number. Cigarettes are renewable, not stock goods. If they were, they would have exactly the same problem as FF. Are you just being deliberately obtuse not to understand that?" No, its only you who continue to be deliberately obtuse. If a safer & cheaper alternative to cigarettes existed, then people would begin switching to that alternative, so the number of smoked cigarettes would decline-as will be the case with fossil fuels vs renewable energy. Of course, we all know that a combination of taxes & warnings *is* leading to a decrease in the number of cigarettes smoked as (a) people who already smoke choose to smoke fewer cigarettes, (b) people who already smoke choose to quit & (c) as fewer people take up the habit. So you see that, once again, your claims are completely *bogus*.
89303. Gilles at 16:15 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       #Dan : I understand that you're speaking of annual rate B(t), not the integrated quantity C. please read again the post here about the discussion of the peak date. With a finite, bell-shaped resource, decreasing the consumption at some time doesn't insure that the integral will decrease, because the spared FF will simply be burnt later (and the two curves intersect at some time). And developed nations consumption per capita, multiplied by the number of human beings, exceeds by far the production capacities of the world. Anyway, before a tax could change significantly the annual consumption of western countries, it should first give a hint of visible effect ! putting real figures, which rate of decrease of FF consumption in western countries do you expect, for which amount of tax ?
89304. Dan Moutal at 16:02 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       BTW someone forgot to close a bold tag, so I took the liberty of doing so in my comment (John it is probably worthwhile to double check the sanitation you do to the comments before they are posted) @Harry Seaward Currently there exists a rather large (and delayed) externality on GHG emissions. As I see it, this is at the root of the problem. How do you propose to solve this? There is nothing socialist about forcing costs to be internalized. In fact the free market depends on this. @Marcus Re: the freemarket Lets not forget that the free-market works amazingly well. But it makes some assumptions, namely that there are no externalities. This is obviously not the case in regards to climate and GHG emissions, so barring any policy to correct for this, we can expect market failure (which is code for some VERY big and scary costs). So the problem here isn't capitalism or the free market, but rather the lack of policy to internalize the costs of GHG emissions. Another way to think about this is that we aren't capitalistic enough! This works well for climate change (and many environmental issues) but not for social issues like Health Care and poverty. Re: Asbestos They haven't stopped mining asbestos. Not here in Canada anyways. We ship it to thrid world countries that don't have many regulations regarding asbestos. But the asbestos industry has declined significantly. Why? Because most countries did ban, or severely regulate the stuff. Why? Because it caused significant externalities (aka cancer). @Gilles Much of what you have written assumes that carbon pricing policies will cause emissions to become very expensive in developed countries while continuing to be cheap in developing countries. Obviously that would lead to a situation where emissions are shifted out of developed countries, but not actually reduced. In fact I have already touched on this in this thread. Needless to say that this scenario wouldn't work. Eventually policies to limit GHG emissions will have to spread to developing nations, which will be a double challenge because due to the poverty issues that face. All I am arguing for is that developed nations (on in this case provinces) take the lead (but not get too far ahead), then help developing nations catch up. So far even this has proved to be too much for most jurisdictions. But I don't see any other way to solve the issue. BTW this (which I stole from Forbes) is the shape I would like global policy to take.
       Moderator Response: [mc] Please restrict image width to 500 by including width=500 or less within the IMG tag.
89305. Riduna at 16:02 PM on 10 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       Good to see so many young people attended - after all its their future which is at stake!
89306. Gilles at 15:58 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Marcus :"Again, Gilles, you give us your tiresome claims that increased FF consumption is somehow the panacea to poverty. I've already highlighted how this claim is complete *hogwash*, yet it doesn't stop you from repeating the claim." well may be you should write all energy agencies and tell the authors of SRES that they're all totally wrong, because I don't know *any* projection from them that doesn't show a net increase of FF in poor countries. Do you mean they only publish garbage (including SRES ?) " The best thing we can do for the poor nations of the world is to ensure their economic development without getting hooked on fossil fuels-like Western nations did." Man, but what are you talking of ? in which world are you living? western countries insured first their economic development by a huge increase of their FF consumption , and then improved it by a combination of better techniques, exportation of energy intensive industries in third world, and some financial hold-ups to increase their wealth and keeping the other poor enough to use their manpower at low cost. Nevertheless , their FF energy consumption per capita is still much higher than that of poor countries ! I defy you to find only one western country whose FF consumption per capita, multiplied by the number of living human beings, doesn't exceed by far the global production capacities. " Targeted development schemes should be aimed at setting up a non-Fossil fuel based energy infrastructure from *day one*. Of course, as this clashes with the agenda of the fossil fuel industry, that isn't happening."" which "fossil fuel industry" does control chinese coal extraction? which one makes Icelandic people import so much oil , although they have plenty of renewable energy? again, in which world are you living ?
89307. actually thoughtful at 15:52 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Sphaerica - there actually is a 4th way - social pressure. Humans are social animals, and while there will always be those who do the opposite of the crowd, for the most part people do what everyone else is doing. This is in the Operating System of being human. So more people using renewable energy leads to even more people using renewable energy. Given the failure of government in most countries, I expect this is how the solution will actually occur, if it does occur in time (which is looking unlikely at this moment).
89308. Gilles at 15:47 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "Now its already been pointed out that that, like cigarettes, fossil fuels won't be banned." If you want this comparison : If cigarettes were a finite resource and if we only taxed them, but not banned them, then the total number of smoked cigarettes would be exactly the same, whatever the tax is : just the initial number. Cigarettes are renewable, not stock goods. If they were, they would have exactly the same problem as FF. Are you just being deliberately obtuse not to understand that ?
89309. Gilles at 15:41 PM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       villabolo " The sentence should have read: "Our measurements of how much energy goes into the atmosphere, land, and melting ice are accurately known, however."" Oh, yes, sure ! I know it accurately. On average , it's zero. It seems that you don't really understand that GW is a change in fluxes and not in stored energy. May be we should discuss a little bit more about that, scientifically speaking.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Please take the discussion of the energy budget to a more appropriate thread, as you were requested to do.
89310. Gilles at 15:35 PM on 10 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       " 1. There is no evidence of dwindling hydrocarbon supply. There is only evidence of dwindling "easy to get at" hydrocarbon supply. Quite a different matter. " As I explained, dwindling "easy to get at" (conventional) supplies means exactly what I said : moving the red curve to the left. Now if you think that there is no evidence that the production is actually peaking, it's probably that you don't follow closely what's currently happening. For instance, look at the prediction vs reality of the last years EIA forecasts for oil production : compare the 2007 to 2010 predictions : already 5 Mbl/yr of oil gone in only three years ! man.. where has all this oil gone ? and no - this has not begun after the economic crisis but before it. You don't see the evidence, because you don't want to see it. " 2. I have never accepted that "supply and demand" is the general determinant of price. Were Model T Fords cheaper than previous cars because demand had decreased or supply had increased? No. Rubbish. They were cheaper because Ford had discovered a way of making more of them for the same money. He could have restricted the supply to a 10,000 rather than a million and he would still have been able to make them more cheaply. It's technology that determines price, not supply and demand. " that's precisely because the production costs had decreased, moving the red curve to the right- exactly the opposite of the FF case. Leading to more production at a cheaper price. It's no rubbish, it's perfectly understandable - you dismiss explanations that you're using yourself. Side remark : if a high price doesn't prevent people from using FF, then how a carbon tax would work ? " 2. Intermittence is most definitely NOT a problem for renewables. We have the technology now to address that through compressed air, hydrogen or methane production, chemical batteries, pumped hydro, and molten salts. ]#" We have, but they aren't cheap - I know no country basing its energy supply on these techniques, they're only marginal. " FF can be replaced entirely by renewables. Name me one use of FF that cannot be replicated by electricity! (I mean fuels of course and not the plastics industry" I suggest you to go in Iceland and explain them how to do this : thanks to geothermal and hydro electricity, they have plenty of renewable electricity , much more than what they really actually need for their personal use (so they build huge aluminium plants to use it and export the aluminium. But still, they import a lot of oil and coal, whereas they're totally deprived of FF resources, and they're not cheap.( see for instance here for data. I saw in Iceland some boat tours that closed because of too high fuel costs. So much probably they're not aware of all the capacities you seem to know perfectly. I think you could make pretty much money there if you sell them your marvelous solutions. BTW all their renewable electricity didn't prevent them to be cruelly hit by the economic crisis, which was the only reason why their consumption decreased in the last years. Again, just open your eyes.
89311. MikeFitz at 15:23 PM on 10 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       Thanks for the photos, John. And thanks for including my "Dont Bet our Last Planet" poster.
89312. Marcus at 15:20 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "now another question : if A is reduced and B is reduced also for the same GDP, how do you insure that the spared FF won't be burnt by other, much poorer, people in the world ? do you think that these much poorer people simply don't exist and that nobody else in the world needs increasing their energy use?" Again, Gilles, you give us your tiresome claims that increased FF consumption is somehow the panacea to poverty. I've already highlighted how this claim is complete *hogwash*, yet it doesn't stop you from repeating the claim. The best thing we can do for the poor nations of the world is to ensure their economic development without getting hooked on fossil fuels-like Western nations did. Targeted development schemes should be aimed at setting up a non-Fossil fuel based energy infrastructure from *day one*. Of course, as this clashes with the agenda of the fossil fuel industry, that isn't happening. This leaves us with a situation in which the developed world are struggling to improve their standard of living whilst they simultaneously remain horribly indebted to the multinational corporations who control the bulk of the world's fossil fuels. Hardly a recipe for reducing poverty.
89313. scaddenp at 15:15 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles - my point was that assuming every good capitalist buying efficient would solve the problem obviously doesnt work. Your objection is irrelevant to that point.
89314. Marcus at 15:13 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "So the real reason why we should consume less FF is that they would become useless, but this is not granted by a mere tax, and if it is true, the tax becomes worthless. A tax is mainly only redistributive - and it can be carbon or anything you want." Gilles, are you just being deliberately *obtuse*? To cite, *again* the example that was already given to you before-they didn't stop mining asbestos because asbestos became worthless-they stopped mining it because the government believed it to be too dangerous, so it was *banned*. Now its already been pointed out that that, like cigarettes, fossil fuels won't be banned. So the only other measure at our disposal is to tax them to the point that their use becomes *more* expensive than other, less harmful means of generating energy. In the interim, though, its hoped that a carbon tax will make the unit cost of FF based energy more expensive, thus encouraging a more efficient use of that energy. Of course, as efficiency increases, so does the energy intensity of the whole economy-which will obviously lead to a decrease in demand for fossil fuels. This will obviously then make fossil fuels less attractive to extract. Now, none of this is exactly *complicated* Gilles, so I just have to wonder why you can't seem to get your head around it, but instead just repeat your tired old cliches?
89315. scaddenp at 15:12 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Harry, what incentive are you giving capitalists to solve a problem? Also, I strongly contest that carbon tax/carbon trading as socialism and here is why. Firstly, consider carbon trading. In its purest form it involves contracts between emitter and credit creator. It is left to market to find the best low carbon technologies (which will be cheapest) and best methods of capture (most efficient means of creating credit). By contrast, subsidies implies a government rather than market picking winners. The government-imposed limit on emissions that drives the market will make carbon emissions expensive and it expects capitalist solutions. Ie the consumers will use their buying power and desire for lowest price to pick the best tech and create profit incentive to drive the development. In practical terms, there are all manner of issues with carbon trading, notably keeping it honest. A carbon tax is simpler and cheaper to administer, but only honest if revenue goes to carbon credit generators. Now I am not necessarily in favour of either - both are problematic in different ways - but to call it socialism/communism is to demonstrate that you dont know what either really is. Since you object to tax, we asked for an alternative that would work. So far you presented hope and nothing else. Furthermore, you also seem to falling on the idea that since you cant find a solution to the problem that fits your political philosophy, then perhaps the problem doesnt exist. This is pure dishonesty. For this discussion to be fruitful, please suppose that you have been presented evidence that utterly convinces you that emissions must be cut or at held at present levels for the your own good and that of future generations. Now if this evidence was available, what real solution, not hand waving, would be acceptable to your political philosophy? Imagine instead that an asteroid is headed our way. Would you be prepared to pay a tax to deploy an asteriod-destroyer? Would you pay for it even if you couldnt be sure the asteroid would hit your home town and instead might hit say china/russia/iran? What if the probability of it hitting US was 10%? 50%? 75%?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Bold tags fixed
89316. daniel maris at 15:10 PM on 10 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       Gilles, No - don't accept any of what you say. 1. There is no evidence of dwindling hydrocarbon supply. There is only evidence of dwindling "easy to get at" hydrocarbon supply. Quite a different matter. 2. I have never accepted that "supply and demand" is the general determinant of price. Were Model T Fords cheaper than previous cars because demand had decreased or supply had increased? No. Rubbish. They were cheaper because Ford had discovered a way of making more of them for the same money. He could have restricted the supply to a 10,000 rather than a million and he would still have been able to make them more cheaply. It's technology that determines price, not supply and demand. 2. Intermittence is most definitely NOT a problem for renewables. We have the technology now to address that through compressed air, hydrogen or methane production, chemical batteries, pumped hydro, and molten salts. ]# The more the oil price climbs, the better for renewables. FF can be replaced entirely by renewables. Name me one use of FF that cannot be replicated by electricity! (I mean fuels of course and not the plastics industry.)
89317. Gilles at 15:09 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       scaddendp : "The logic is already operating but carbon emissions rise. It would make more economic sense to buy a fuel-efficient car but people buy SUVs. All you are suggesting is business as usual.' the real reason why carbon emissions rise is not because people by SUVs instead of fuel-efficient cars. It's because people who were deprived of cars are able to buy one, increasing the number of cars. See point 2. Carbon emissions DO decrease in OECD - they increase much more in poorer countries.
89318. Gilles at 15:02 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       sorry I mixed up some sentences which makes the argument difficult to follow. The last paragraphs after "this is another point" up to the end should be placed between my "second" and "third" points - this actually an answer to the second point.
89319. Gilles at 14:59 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       54 : Bern, there are several interesting points in your argument : first : "a carbon tax isn't intended to reduce carbon intensity, it's intended to reduce carbon consumption (your 'B')." do you agree that if the carbon intensity A is not reduced, but the carbon consumption is, then the GDP = B/A must decrease ? so actually in a first step you're claiming that GDP will actually decrease ? (that's exactly what happened in 2008-2009 BTW - that's not at all a virtual situation). second : "Reducing B will lead to a reduction in A, as people will find ways to reduce the amount of carbon tax they pay while continuing life as normal." Now the third point : "As for the last bit: Er, if C is an integral of B.dT over the 21st century, then of course reducing B at any point reduces C... If you don't see that, then I suggest a basic calculus course might be in order." I perfectly see that - but there is a point you seem to ignore - this is that FF are finite and will peak some time in the XXIth century. So the curve will decrease anyway. But sparing now FF means that at the date of the forecast peak, we will have still a large amount left, because conservation will have been efficient to spare them. But now comes the important point : to insure that B(t) is reduced at any point , you must insure that the second curve (B2'(t) ) will peak at the same time as the first one B1(t), to keep always below it. If you don't do that, the two curves will intersect after the peak, because B2(t) will keep on increasing, as FF have not yet been exhausted. So tell me : by which mechanism will you insure that FF will peak at the same time , or early enough to insure that the curves won't intersect ? this is actually the same kind of question as the previous one, because it is equivalent to ask : how do you intend to prevent future people (instead of current poorer people) to use the spared FF you have left to them ? and how will they know that they should peak at the same time as B1(t) since they have no damned idea of when B1(t) would have peaked if we didn't have conserved energy before ? again,not a virtual question : that's exactly what happened for oil after the 70's. If you extrapolate the growth curve before 1970, oil production was increasing by 5 % a year at this time and would probably have peaked in the 90's. But thanks to conservation measures, it actually changed its slope and increased much less than expected. Result : there was still plenty of available oil in the 90's. Collapse of FSU helped also to reduce the world consumption. Did we make the production peak in the 90's to insure we would always stay below the first curve? no, of course, and for very obvious reasons. Nobody knew what would have been the real date of the peak - and no oil producer or oil company would have the slightest ground not to use oil that was there , in their wells, ready to flow, just because they WOULD have peaked if the demand had been larger before - that's a total nonsense. Instead, oil production kept on increasing, until the real peak was reached in 2006 - but for the same total amount as before. In conclusion : it is perfectly understandable that if B(t) is reduced at any time , then the integral will be lower - it is just an unphysical assumption. Now the only reason why the total consumption would be reduced is your last one : "Given the amount of research & development going on, I suspect that we will soon have much cheaper alternatives, " But this is only wishful thinking, and I'll do two concluding remarks * this does *not* really depend on a tax, but on technical and economical issues that are far beyond the capacities of a tax to be solved. * if you're right , that R&D will soon insure much cheaper alternatives than FF, then a tax is useless, because BAU would also insure automatically that people switch to cheaper alternatives - and even energy companies would have their interest in investing massively in these new cheap techniques to make more profit than their competitors. So the real reason why we should consume less FF is that they would become useless, but this is not granted by a mere tax, and if it is true, the tax becomes worthless. A tax is mainly only redistributive - and it can be carbon or anything you want. this is another point : you claim the tax will insure an improvement of A (so it contradicts what you said just above : "You're putting the cart before the horse, by insisting the objective is to reduce intensity of FF use, when it's not that at all." - because it is in fact exactly that : the aim is to reduce A.) now another question : if A is reduced and B is reduced also for the same GDP, how do you insure that the spared FF won't be burnt by other, much poorer, people in the world ? do you think that these much poorer people simply don't exist and that nobody else in the world needs increasing their energy use ? so how do you intend to prevent them from using the left FF, and more importantly, how do you justify it ?
89320. Marcus at 14:47 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "Name just one example where socialism or communism solved anything." Hilarious, Harry. Can you give me just one example of where *true* Capitalism solved anything? I find it interesting, though, that those nations with the most "Left-of-Center" political systems are also those with the highest quality of life indicators (mortality rates, median income, crime statistics, homelessness). For all your talk, Harry, I've not seen that bastion of the Free Market-the US of A-solve the problems of poverty, homelessness, drug use, racism or crime-so what makes you think the free market is going to solve the *many* environmental & social issues associated with the use of Fossil Fuels?
89321. Marcus at 14:43 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "If FF are truly the issue that many think they are (and many don't), and there becomes a great demand for the solution, then some ingenuitive capitalist(s) will find a way to solve the problem." Harry, you want to give even a *shred* of evidence that backs either part of the above comment? Where are the "many" people who don't think FF's are an issue? Well, outside of those with a vested interest in the Fossil Fuel industry of course. As to the 2nd part of your comment, there are plenty of intuitive people in both the public & private sectors who've come up with numerous ways to solve the problem. Unfortunately, the proponents of the so-called "free-market", & their lackeys in politics & the media, are doing their level best to prevent any attempts to implement any of these solutions-whilst simultaneously ensuring that all the long-standing tax-payer funded subsidies for the fossil fuel industry continue to be maintained. Sounds like your beloved "Free Market" isn't quite as free as you claim.
89322. Tom Curtis at 14:18 PM on 10 April 2011
       A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
       Ken Lambert @48 insists on a number of very bad arguments. First he insists that comments meant to defend a claim of very small energy gain in the arctic must not be interpreted that way because if you do, that would make him look bad. I do not think much of that claim, but were I to properly address it I would necessarily violate the comments policy, so I will not pursue it. Second, he insists on treating the total energy flux, the total change in energy flux, the total forcing, the total change of forcing, and the total energy stored in a particular way as if they were all the same thing. Thus he argues that the total change in forcing in the arctic cannot be greater than that at 23 degrees North simply because the total energy flux at 23 degrees North is greater than that in the arctic. As it happens, even for the Green House Effect, the total change in forcing is known to be stronger at higher latitudes, even though the total forcing is greater in the tropics, so his argument, if you distinguish between these two things is absurd. Likewise he insists that because Trenberth determined the total energy used in additional ice melt in the arctic is about 1*10^20 Joules per annum, that this sets an effective limit on the total change in flux, and change in forcing in the arctic. The non-sequitur is evident. Energy gained need not be retained, and if retained need not all go into one usage. In fact it is known that arctic water is carried to the ocean depths, carrying substantial heat with it. It is also quite probable that increased forcing in the arctic will result in less energy transfer from the tropics, resulting in a net heat gain outside the arctic. Without a full accounting of heat flows into and out of the arctic over the period of interest, which Lambert neither attempts nor cites, his argument is missing crucial premises. It is as though he believes that if he does not know what the energy flows are, they must not exist. It is only necessary to keep these various concepts distinct to see the absurdity of Lambert's arguments on these points - so no further rebuttal is necessary. Finally, Lambert persists in his arguments regarding the size of the area effected, and the low angle of incidence, as proof that change in forcing in the arctic cannot be significant. These factors are significant, and are fully accounted for in studies such as those by Flanner. Therefore, his argument is ungrounded. If he wished to pursue this argument honestly, he would analyse the method used by Flanner to account for these factors, and show the flaws, if any. For whatever reason, he wants to avoid that work, and declare Flanner void based on his own unquantified estimates of the effects involved, together with his misuse of a number from Trenberth. The easiest way to rebut him is to give him all he asks for. I previously worked out a rough estimate of the total increase of energy flux absorbed in the Arctic due to loss of sea ice over the last thirty years. That number is not to be confused with the increase in forcing as it does not account for the increase in outward flux. It was sufficiently large, however, that it was evident that even after allowing for any reasonable increase in outward flux, the forcings claimed by Flanner are reasonable. It is not possible to refute them in other words, by back of the envelope calculations. Lambert, of course, considers by number too large. He thinks it should be 2 orders of magnitude smaller. So I recalculated the figure making conservative assumptions, and allowing for every factor he has identified as significant. (I also did not allow for the other factors he did not bother identifying that tend to work the other way.) The result? The minimum change of inward flux with the most conservative estimate is just a third of my initial estimate (after correction for an error in calculation). Where, for his argument to fly, Lambert needs it to be 150 times smaller, it is just 3 times smaller. No wonder Lambert never quantified his argument, for once you do it is transparent it will not carry the weight he puts on it. The new calculation follows: Courtesy of Daniel Bailey, we know that the average latitude of the edge of summer sea ice in the arctic is 75 degrees. Over the summer months, at 75 degrees North, the average Zenith angle is about 57 degrees, with the sun varying from 57 degrees to 3 degrees above the horizon during the 24 hour day. I will treat the sun as having an angle above the horizon of 55 degrees for 3 hours (around noon), 45 degrees for 6 hours (around 9 am and 3 pm), 30 degrees for 6 hours (around 6 am and 6 pm, 15 degrees for six hours (around 3 am and 9 pm), and 0 degrees for 3 hours (around 'midnight'). These are, of course, approximations, but by my estimate they underestimate the values, which will lead to an overstating of the albedo of water at that latitude in the NH summer. They are more conservative than simple geometry indicates, of course, because refraction in the atmosphere means that light curves towards the surface, thus striking the surface at a higher angle of incidence than indicated by simple geometry. I would not normally consider this worth mentioning, but Ken Lambert wants to mention every factor that operates on the other side of the equation, not matter how slight. We should therefore keep track of all the factors that he does not want to mention. To actually determine the albedo, we consult the following chart from wikipedia: From that we can determine the ocean at that latitude will have an albedo of 0.05 for 15 hours of the day, ie, for any time when the sun is more than 20 degrees above the horizon. It has an albedo of 0.15 for six hours of the day (when the sun is about 15 degrees above the horizon), and an albedo of 1 for 3 hours of the day. Again, you will notice these are conservative estimates based on the charts. Therefore the average albedo is 0.2 My original estimate of ocean albedo was 0.1 The difference means that the change in albedo when sea ice melts is 0.7 rather than the 0.8 of my original estimate, meaning my original estimate was 1/7th too high. Those who have followed KL's posts in this debate will wonder why he has made such a big thing of the increase in albedo because of the high angle of incidence. Those of a more cynical nature will wonder why he always mentioned it, but never quantified it. I need to make some further adjustment based on data in Trenberth's energy balance diagram: The first thing to notice is the cloud albedo, which is 0.23 This is a significant over estimate for the arctic as there is a much higher amount of cloud in the tropics. I will use the figure unadjusted. The second thing to notice solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere, which is again about 23%. Adjusting that for the average increase in path length over the day at 75 North over the summer months leads to a calculated absorption of 46%. Again, this is a significant over estimate of the effect. Much of the absorbed energy is UV radiation absorbed in the mesosphere and stratosphere. Because it is almost entirely absorbed, even in the tropics, the additional path length cannot lead to a doubling of the energy absorbed. In fact, in those portions of the spectrum where the radiation is entirely absorbed, increasing the path length results in no increase in absorption. Even where only part of the energy is absorbed, the correct treatment would be based on the Beers Lambert law, which applied to the total absorption would lead to an estimate of 40% absorption from doubling path length (rather than the 46% I will use), and is still an overestimate as it still does not allow for those significant areas of total absorption, particularly in the UV spectrum. Finally, it is also an overestimate because Trenberth's figure already includes the increased absorption due to path length in polar regions in the average, inflating the base figure before my calculation. Allowing for all these factors, a more accurate estimate is likely to be around 32% absorption, but I intend to give Lambert's objections absolutely everything that they could be conceivably by permitted, so I will use the 46% value. So, given these figures, and given that the top of atmosphere summer insolation at 75 degrees North averages 500 w/m^2, we can then determine that the average absorption by open ocean surface at 75 degrees North in the summer is 500*0.54*0.77*0.8 = 166.32 w/m^2. We can also determine that the average absorption by sea ice at the same latitude and time is 500*0.54*0.77*0.1 = 20.78 w/m^2. The difference, 145.53 w/m^2 is the additional power absorbed in the arctic for each square meter of sea ice that melts. Over the summer season, that means for each additional square meter of sea ice melted, and additional 1.1 billion Joules of energy is absorbed. The average change in sea ice area since 1978 during the summer is a reduction of 2 million square kilometers, or 2*10^12 square meters. That means the average additional energy received in the arctic summer due to global warming induce melt back is 2.2*10^21 Joules, or about a third of my rough estimate. Please note, because I have estimated conservatively at every step, this is definitely and underestimate of the real value. Also note, this estimate takes into account every single one of the factors Ken Lambert considers important. To put this into perspective (and bring it back on topic), Flanner estimates a change NH average forcing from melted sea ice of 0.47 w/m^2 over the three months with greatest increased forcing, which works out at 9.25*10^20 Joules over that period. That is less than half of the minimum value for the increase of incoming energy. Consequently, Lambert's claim that "Flanner's number is simply impossible" shows only that he is unwilling to address the evidence. Just briefly, and because Ken Lambert insists the comparison is significant, we might compare that figure to the equivalent figure at 23 degrees North. The comparison is very easy. There was no sea ice at 23 degrees north, even in the little ice age. So the additional energy absorbed due to sea ice melt at 23 degrees north is zero. Ken Lambert keeps on arguing that the calculations of additional incoming energy by me, and the calculations of ice albedo feedback by Flanner must be in error because of the relatively small part of the globe which is effected. What he neglects is that it may be a small part of the globe, but it is a very large part of the ice (and snow) covered portion of the globe. Because albedo effects are much stronger, for a given percentage change in the forcing agent, than are green house effects; this means that a relatively small part of the globe can have a disproportionately large effect on the total feedback to an initial forcing.
89323. Harry Seaward at 13:53 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       DSL @ 55 Name just one example where socialism or communism solved anything. If FF are truly the issue that many think they are (and many don't), and there becomes a great demand for the solution, then some ingenuitive capitalist(s) will find a way to solve the problem. And, can you clarify this, please: "we'd probably have simpler machines, fewer people, less killing, more sickness,..."
89324. villabolo at 12:46 PM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @13 Don; your point well taken. I have changed the statement to emphasize that point.
89325. Dan Moutal at 12:20 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       @ Harry Seaward You seem to be making the same mistake as John Hunter @ DSL I think you are over complicating things a bit. I have always found that the most useful framework for understanding the free market (and it pros and cons) is to think about externalities. Pretty much any environmental issue has at its root an externality. Find a way to intenalize those costs (which is what a price on carbon attempts) and the free market takes care of the rest. Usually.
89326. scaddenp at 12:08 PM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Harry for the life of me I can't see how your example is supposed to make a measurable difference to carbon emissions. The logic is already operating but carbon emissions rise. It would make more economic sense to buy a fuel-efficient car but people buy SUVs. All you are suggesting is business as usual. The problem is how to harness capitalism to deal with a situation with FF is cheaper than alternatives and the environmental costs are borne by other the FF consumers. (Notably a future generation). We need something realistic here to cut carbon intensity.
89327. Don9000 at 12:06 PM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Don't oceans actually average several thousand meters deeper than 900 meters? If so, saying so more forcefully would more accurately reflect the gulf in the data.
89328. DSL at 11:33 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       It is true that capitalism (not the free market but the undercompensation of productive labor) shortens the path of technological progress (vs. feudalism, anyway. vs. socialism, the jury's out). It does so with a human cost. It is also extremely wasteful, encourages mistrust and fraud, allows commodity relations to dominate (dehumanization), undermines democratic rule, and leads to bizarre behavior among the ruling class . . . among other features. It must be bliss not to have to confront the history of a thing bought in a store. I would add, Bob, a fifth: collective agreement to do what has been determined through painfully slow deliberation to be in everyone's best interests. Obviously Harry's fourth and my fifth are not compatible. There is also the assumption that the "free market" will automatically provide humans with exactly what they want. The problem is that if you discourage the social determination of needs, then shortsighted, nearsighted individuals trapped within a private property system with diminishing resources is what you're left with. It ain't pretty, except, of course, for the owners of the means of production and the managerial class (which occasionally suffers angst while doing laundry and looking at their shirt tags, wondering what "Madagascar" is). What we're doing with carbon taxing is paying for the sins of our grandfathers and fathers, many of whom are still alive. Had we had the collective foresight and the means to materially express that foresight, we'd probably have simpler machines, fewer people, less killing, more sickness, less medical fraud, a more effective democracy, less expensive but weaker armies, and certainly an atmosphere that isn't developing into a giant pain in the market. I'll bet we'd be happier (antidepressants would not be no. 2 in popularity, after painkillers).
89329. Bern at 11:05 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Gilles @ 50: As Muoncounter has stated in the moderator response to your post, this article is about a carbon tax, not carbon intensity. The simple answer to your question, though, is that a carbon tax isn't intended to reduce carbon intensity, it's intended to reduce carbon consumption (your 'B'). You're putting the cart before the horse, by insisting the objective is to reduce intensity of FF use, when it's not that at all. Reducing B will lead to a reduction in A, as people will find ways to reduce the amount of carbon tax they pay while continuing life as normal. As for the last bit: Er, if C is an integral of B.dT over the 21st century, then of course reducing B at any point reduces C... If you don't see that, then I suggest a basic calculus course might be in order. The point being: a carbon tax makes using fossil fuels more expensive, so people will use less of them, or even better, find a cheaper alternative that burns no fossil fuels whatsoever. Given the amount of research & development going on, I suspect that we will soon have much cheaper alternatives, and the payoff in improved air quality in many major cities will be dramatic over the next few decades (especially as automotive use of FF declines).
89330. Harry Seaward at 10:56 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Sphaerica @ 51 and other places: The alternative you have missed is called capitalism. My wife and I live in the U.S. She recently replaced our 13 year old washer and dryer that were still operating reasonably with a more modern pair. Why? Better performance, less water usage, less electricity usage, etc... Water wise we are using half as much per load as before. I don't have quantitative numbers on the electricity usage, but it should be noticeably less. We spent some money, but our return on investment (ROI) should be realized within a few years. The money she spent went to the manufacturer, the distributor, the transportation entity, the appliance store, the salesman, and the delivery/setup guy. I then turned around and sold our old units to a family that lives in poverty. They got a good deal and can now wash clothes in their own home instead of a laundromat. Saves them some money, but does increase their home energy use. Adding a tax to my energy consumption had nothing to do with our decision. We simply wanted to more efficient.
89331. Harry Seaward at 10:43 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Sphaerica @ 41 Can you please rephrase this statement of yours so I can make sure I understand what you are saying? Thanks. "...in people who are (foolishly) still afraid of communism (primarily the 60+ crowd)."
89332. mothincarnate at 10:19 AM on 10 April 2011
       Photos from the Brisbane Rally for Climate Action
       Good to see!
89333. villabolo at 10:11 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @10 MattJ: But it lacks the rhetorical 'punch' needed to compete with the disinformation machine: ..." With the possible exception of the title, it may be a bit too mildly worded. JC, though, has brought up my tendency to be emotive so I've been playing it cool.
89334. villabolo at 10:02 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       @2 Albatross: You're right; I made a mistake in wording. I was going to enumerate those portions of our climate system where we have accurate measurements. The sentence should have read: "Our measurements of how much energy goes into the atmosphere, land, and melting ice are accurately known, however." But now that I see a certain clumsiness in that statement, I may change it to: "Our measurements of how much energy is going everywhere else are well known, however." A question to anyone. Which of the above corrections do you think is the best statement?
89335. MattJ at 09:36 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       The article is good, the facts explained are correct. But it lacks the rhetorical 'punch' needed to compete with the disinformation machine: it is far too easy to do just as the article says, quoting Trenberth out of context. I am not sure there is a real solution to this. The fiasco is a good example of why private communications between scientists are not necessarily suitable for public release. But alas, the wider public does not understand that what is said in a private context may be understood completely differently when repeated outside it.
89336. Bob Lacatena at 08:43 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       There are, to my knowledge, only three ways to control human behavior: 1) Make something illegal, and punishable by law (e.g. no stealing) 2) Instill a moral imperative (e.g. no lying) 3) Tax it (e.g. no using carbon based fuels without paying extra for the damage that such use is doing to civilization) It is pretty obvious that the first two solutions will not work in the case of fossil fuel use, so it falls to us to develop a fair way to manage the third. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand and accept? What alternative have I missed?
89337. muoncounter at 07:25 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       dm#61: "having to deal with sea level makes a country poor is ridiculous." Hardly what was said from #55 on. However, it is clear that countries under economic stress will not be able to deal with such problems. What is ridiculous is this tendency to prescribe for other countries -- let the Chinese move their cities, put Egyptians to work filling sandbags -- rather than find global solutions to what is undeniably a global problem.
89338. Gilles at 07:14 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       Dear all I already stressed that we shouldn't mix up three very different quantities * the carbon intensity A (amount of carbon burnt per unit service, or say per $ GDP) * the carbon consumption (it's B = A* GDP) * the total carbon burnt over the XXIth century C = \int (Bdt) (the integral of B(t) over the whole century). Before continuing arguing, do you admit first that A,B, and C are three different quantities (actually they are even dimensionally different) , and that reducing A doesn't imply that we'll reduce B, and reducing B at some period doesn't imply that we'll reduce C ?
       Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Another attempt to drive yet another thread off-topic? This thread is about a carbon tax.
89339. scaddenp at 06:48 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       GFW - its the Marlborough Sounds area on the northern part of NZ's South Island. (I live much further south).
89340. scaddenp at 06:47 AM on 10 April 2011
       Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
       Daniel, the Stern report is but one example from WG2. Show me a study that that doesnt underestimate warming that comes out with a different result. Lomberg is the only attempt I know of and he grossly underestimated warming and has since changed his tune. For discussion of "plant food" (not true), go to is not that bad.
89341. scaddenp at 06:39 AM on 10 April 2011
       How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
       "This is classic redistribution of wealth. Karl Marx is smiling in his grave right now." Harry, I would like to hear your idea of what would be the best way to reduce carbon emissions. Carbon tax/carbon trading is usually assumed to be the methods of the economic right, while carbon rationing is the preferred choice of the left. A more politically acceptable way of reducing carbon emissions would be extremely welcome.
89342. Albatross at 06:06 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       Gilles, Thanks, I'm pleasantly surprised. Just to clarify for others, those "some people" to whom you refer are 'skeptics' of AGW.
89343. Gilles at 05:53 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       I am fully ready to recognize that some people have distorted the meaning of Trenberth quote [snip]
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Inflamatory part of the post snipped. Gilles has given an unequivocal answer to the question, lets leave it at that please.
89344. Gilles at 05:11 AM on 10 April 2011
       Arctic Ice March 2011
       sorry DM, I think I understand Popper's paradigm as well as yourself. That's why I remarked that the kind of predictions made by logicman are not able to disprove the theory - so they're in his sense "weak" predictions. Although it's true we cannot prove a theory, the degree of faith that we can have in it is dependent on the number of unlikely predictions that it has made successfully (example : discovery of the massive bosons has given much confidence in the electroweak theory) . By unlikely, I mean that saying "the ice is thin, it will probably melt a lot this month" is much less unlikely that "the ice will be thin in ten years and will probably melt on month earlier".
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Sorry I'm not biting, but as I said, discussion of empirical doubt is off-topic. My comment to logicman was a good-natured commendation of his good scientific attitude, it was not an invitation to return to an off-topic discussion. No more.
89345. Albatross at 05:08 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       I'm not asking you if you care Gilles, that is not relevant. I'm asking you what should be a simple thing to do-- unequivocally concede/acknowledge that 'skeptics"/contrarians and those in denial about AGW have distorted and spun the comment in question to further their misinformation campaign and to sow doubt. Can't do it can you? :o)
89346. Gilles at 05:03 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       i don't know whom you're calling "likes of myself" ? that's a bizarre categorization. Do you mean male people with blond hair and blue eyes ? I don't care about people misinterpreting Trenberth's sentence, neither about people saying incorrectly that Jones' "trick" was to try to hide the decline of instrumental temperatures. A lot of people are speaking about climate without understanding the slightest aspect of radiative transfer, of thermodynamics, without knowing what an error bar is, or an effective temperature , not to speak of principal components analysis, limit cycles, or spatio-temporal chaos.Also I'm not either a deep specialist of all that, I think my general knowledge is much higher than the average one, and I don't think being "like" people you're speaking of.
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] If you are not interested in people misintepreting Trenberth's sentence, the topic of this article, then please restrain from obstructing the discussion amongst those that do. If you want to discuss the gap in the energy budget, please find a more appropriate thread where that discussion is not off-topic (perhaps this one).
89347. Gilles at 04:46 AM on 10 April 2011
       A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
       " There are clearly loads more hydrocarbons available on the planet. Price might go up, but that just makes exploration and extraction more attractive. " No, they don't "just" do that. You "just" forgot the other half of the of the supply and demand law : when prices go up, the demand decreases. dwindling supplies means actually that the red curve goes to the left - meaning more expensive FF and less production. Actually the production per capita has been fairly constant during 30 years, and the GDP growth has been obtained only through demographic expansion and improvement of energy intensity. But with decreasing resources, it is not granted at all that this pace can be maintained. " But if the trends continue for the next 20 years we will see renewables become cheaper than hydrocarbons. Onshore wind is already cheaper than nuclear. " think of a simple question : what makes the cost of renewable energy ? another thing is of course that the capacity of renewable generation is limited by intermittence - and yet another one is that FF can't be replaced by electricity in all their uses. All this together doesn't make the situation so comfortable you think, by far. The oil price is climbing anew to the sky. I predict that we won't wait for years before the next economic crisis, which will be still worse than the previous one - and like the previous one, no rush on renewables- just more poor people.
89348. Albatross at 04:38 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       #1, I am obviously talking about this specific comment made by Dr. Trenberth. Sad that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that this specific comment has been abused by the likes of yourself. Come on surprise me and do so :)
89349. Gilles at 04:32 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       a comment about the comment : that's why the comparison made in the post is somewhat disingenuous : "Suppose you are an accountant for a major corporation which grossed 1 billion dollars last year, an increase from the previous year. Your job is to find out where and how that money was spent. You take into account every detail such as salaries, benefits, purchases, etc.. Ideally, your goal as an accountant is to account for every dollar spent or left over as profit. Realistically you can be off by a small amount without worry. Imagine, however, that 10% (100 million dollars) is unaccounted for. " The issue here is that we don't know exactly how much the Earth has gained so the "1 billion dollars" is not known actually.
89350. Gilles at 04:26 AM on 10 April 2011
       The e-mail 'scandal' travesty in misquoting Trenberth on
       #2 : I have no difficulty to admit that discussions about climate are full of distortions and misinterpretations - on both sides. Nevertheless , Trenberth's quote shows that we're certainly not entitled to claim that we understand accurately the energy budget of the Earth, as you admit yourself.

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