Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 Next
Comments 89551 to 89600:
-
Albatross at 01:57 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DM, Thanks for your efforts here. Perhaps also please try and and steer/guide contrarian back to the subject of this thread-- the current melt season, the subject of this thread.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] No problem, good point, please pay attention to it everybody! ;o) -
muoncounter at 01:57 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
Gilles#196 "I'm not saying this is the cause of ice melting - I just present an example of obvious multidecadal oscillations, and there are others." Excellent. I'm not saying ice is melted by the exhaust from snowmobiles; I'm just presenting an obvious example. No one takes this sort of statement seriously. If you are proposing that 'oscillations' are the cause of an effect that has a long-term trend, do so in a scientific manner. Review the evidence (not just the vague pronouncements) and take it to a thread that discusses such oscillations. That is what an actual scientist would do. -
Rob Honeycutt at 01:56 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
Peter @ 1... Perhaps a better analogy is strychnine. I believe a lethal dose of strychnine is well below 450ppm relative to the human body. Small portions of certain substances can certainly have large effects. -
Albatross at 01:56 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
That quote @197 was made 11 years ago. The AO has been reproduced in models for some time, and the impacts of natural variability and various forcings (e.g., volcanoes, anthro GHGs) has also been investigated (e.g., Gillett et al. (2002), and very recent work has focussed on the impacts of Arctic sea ice loss on the AO and NAO. Also read AR4. -
Steve L at 01:54 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I think in the first year of the carbon tax, we (everybody) got $120 rebated in cheques. I haven't received a cheque since then. It's too bad, because many of hte people here have forgotten that the tax is revenue neutral. They may need something tangible to be reminded periodically. I'd love for the tax to go up to $100, because I live in a high density area and can bike to work. For others, like those living out in the sticks, I can see why they wouldn't want to subsidize me. And I can see imagine still others who would travel across the US or Alberta border for gas if the tax gets too far ahead of other price in other places. -
Albatross at 01:44 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
There was no "global cooling theory" in the 70s, there was a concern (a hypothesis) amongst some scientists that should sulfate aerosols continue to increase rapidly that the associated cooling could pose a problem. It was a conditional prediction, contingent on sulfate aerosols increasing fourfold. Two compare that hypothesis with the theory of AGW and the current situation (as some contrarians are doing) is pure folly. This has all been discussed in the main post, but apparently it needs to be repeated here again. "May we all have so much of “humility” as Dr. Christy .." Umm, not even close. Christy frequently speaks to subjects that is is not even closely qualified to speak to (see his recent testimony to Congress); it took him and Spencer years to acknowledge that their UAH data were flawed and to correct it; only in 2012 is he making his UAH code available (long after GISTEMP), and goodness' knows what that will reveal; he frequently belittles and slanders his colleagues..... Kudos to the person who finds the first statement made by Christy that qualifies as misleading congress so that someone can take this further..... -
Gilles at 01:43 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
concerning AO http://www.jisao.washington.edu/wallace/ncar_notes/ "An important challenge facing us now is to incorporate these AO-related changes into our thinking about human influences on climate." As I understand it : it is not yet done. -
Peter Bellin at 01:43 AM on 9 April 2011From The Halls of Montezuma
I am uncomfortable with David Tilley's blood alcohol analogy, not only for the suggestion that people who don't drink are boring, and that getting drunk is fun. It also suggest the current carbon dioxide levels are OK (the analogy to the blood alcohol level of .04 %). In fact, I think current carbon dioxide concentrations are dangerous and need to be reduced. -
Steve L at 01:40 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
I think part of the communication problem with skeptics (and the broader public) on this issue may be the difference between recognizing cooling that had occurred by the 1970s versus predicting that it would continue into the future. They're very different things, for scientifically-minded people. I don't know if trends past-to-present and predictions for the future are so different in the minds of others. You see the problem in discussions of sea level rise, human health and welfare, and also a bunch of topics that aren't very climate-related. Arkadiusz #18 might be a good example of that issue, but specific to the 1970s claim. -
Gilles at 01:39 AM on 9 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
DM : if you discuss about significance, you don't have to prove there is something else. You don't have to prove it is *not* real. It is just a matter of confidence. For instance, you say : "Secondly, the historical data do not necessarily say that the ice is insensitive to the change in temperature as temperature is not the only thing that controls ice loss, and those factors need to be considered." you admit that other things than temperature can influence ice melting - but this also means that current melting can be due to these "other things". Concerning AO , I'm not saying this is the cause of ice melting - I just present an example of obvious multidecadal oscillations, and there are others. i'm not trying to design my own theory - and when talking with astrologists, I don't try to "prove" any other explanation of why we have our personality either. The burden of the proof is for the one who claims he has a theory - and extrapolating a linear trend can hardly be called a "theory" in my sense. It is well possible that part of the melting is due to global warming and another part belongs to long period cycles - thus extrapolating would grossly exaggerate the rate. It is possible that on the opposite it's entirely due to GW and will even accelerate due to non linear feedback - I'm just saying that I don't see strong evidence for that. The more uncertain are the data, the easier you can predict catastrophes ...Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] "The burden of proof is for the one who claims he has a theory" says it all. You can't prove a theory by observation; that is well known in the philosophy of science (Popper). Tom Curtis has already pointed out to you that this is the well-known "problem of induction", and both he and I have pointed out the solutions to this problem that have been adopted in the world of science. If your point is only (essentially) that there maybe be stuff we don't know about that might be causing the ice to melt other than warming, then yes, you are technically correct, but science has developed means to deal with this epistemological doubt that have proven highly effective for a couple of centuries. If they hadn't, we would have no means of inferring a general principle from observations, and science would have made little progress. You have made your point, it is irellevant and displays a lack of understanding of scientific method, and any further repetition is now "off-topic".It is interesting Gilles mentions astrology as it was used to exemplify the difference between science and non-science by Popper. Gilles could usefully occupy his time reading up on Poppers work (e.g. here). He might even realise that what he is doing is rather akin to astrology (looking for correlations that "explain" the observations without worrying about a physical mechanism that might imply the correlation is due to a causal relationship. If you look hard enough you can always find a correllation with something - even if it is the motion of Pluto - not that anyone would make that argument ;o).
-
Alexandre at 01:36 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Gilles at 01:26 AM on 9 April, 2011, says: I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either. First, I'm relieved that you agree it's not catastrophic. So further such experiments should not end the world or harm anyone. Second, no, it will not stop people extracting FF at this point. But it will improve the economic attractiveness of the alternatives, and help them gain scale. For now. -
Albatross at 01:31 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Sad that some here just cannot (or refuse to) grasp this simple concept. BC are clearly leaders and should be proud-- this is a proof of concept project (as CB noted) and so far it has demonstrated that a carbon tax can work. The NDP (the official opposition) also recently admitted that it was a mistake on their part to contest the carbon tax in the last election. Having been to BC, one thing is very apparent when one arrives. Taxi fleets have large numbers of hybrids, and cars in general are much smaller (and more fuel efficient). Now that does make a difference to emissions and pollution. The tax has also been an incentive to push to increase efficiency in other avenues. IMHO, the only problem with the tax right now is that the price is limited to $30 a tonne in 2012, in order for a carbon tax to be effective it has to increase incrementally until the population and industry respond and to substantially decrease emissions. Emission data from Environment Canada are only available until 2008, inclusive. This Wiki page might provide some more useful information. And no one is suggesting that a carbon tax is intended to stop extracting FFs-- please enough with the argumentum ad absurdum, this is not a Republican energy hearing ;) -
Gilles at 01:26 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
19 Alexandre - I never said it was catastrophic - gas is much more taxed in France than in US, that's kind of a carbon tax, and we survive - and have much more efficient cars than in US. I just said it won't change the amount of FF under the ground, and won't make us stop extracting them either. -
Tom Curtis at 01:20 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Arkudiusz Semcyszak, I am sorry but your English is so fractured that I often find it impossible to understand your meaning. Your interpretation of scientific papers suggests you have the same problem understanding normal English prose. Are you actually an English speaker? Or are you using a translation program? If the later, it is not up to the demands you are placing on it. If the former, would you please take more lessons so that we can have a coherent conversation. -
Alexandre at 01:14 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
CBDunkerson at 00:42 AM on 9 April, 2011 The anedoctical account of John Hunter does not make justice to the overall acceptance of the initiative. The NYT article has some figures about polls on this issue: Environics Research Group Ltd. documented an almost 10-percentage-point rise in support among British Columbians for the carbon tax between when the tax was about to be implemented in 2008 and when it had been in place for a year in 2009, for example. Last month, researchers at three universities reported (pdf) that an even stronger majority, or 56 percent of Canadians, supported a carbon tax costing $50 a month. "Initially, some people heard the 't' word and went into a tizzy," said Robert Gifford, a professor at the University of Victoria and an expert in environmental psychology. "Then the end of the world didn't happen, and people just accepted the tax." -
dana1981 at 01:14 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Nick #17 - we'll be addressing both the myths that you mention propagated by Christy in future Christy Crocks. Arkadiusz #16 and #18 - please try actually reading the article that you're commenting on. -
Tom Curtis at 01:13 AM on 9 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
AS @44 The conclusion of Turney and Jones 2010?The Last Interglacial is an excellent example of a super-interglacial, a period warmer than today, where sea levels were 6.6–9.4 m higher than today, providing a valuable insight into the future climate system. Unfortunately, previous estimates of global and regional temperatures have been highly uncertain. Here we have compiled 263 quantified ice, marine and terrestrial records spanning the Last Interglacial. Although only a first approximation of published datasets, our results suggest this period was approximately 1.5°C warmer than AD 1961–1990 (∼1.9°C relative to pre-industrial levels). A comparison between the reconstructed temperature and δ18O trends in the highest-resolved records preserves a stratigraphic lead in ‘local’ warming over the shift to interglacial conditions around the southern African coastline. These results imply an enhanced leakage of the Agulhas Current into the Atlantic Ocean, injecting warm, saline water into the meridional ocean circulation and amplifying global warming during this super-interglacial. The above observations suggest the LIG can provide important insights into the mechanisms of future climate and whether a 2°C stabilisation scenario can be considered ‘safe’.
(My emphasis) As the authors conclude that the Eemian can provide the sort of insights I am taking from it, it seems hard to conclude the paper provides evidence that you cannot. Certainly taking the lowest extreme of temperature estimates with the upper limit of SL estimates to argue that temperature is not the explanation of the SL rise is unwarranted. Indeed, it is the sort of argument that has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience. Discussed in context the paper supports the conclusion that relatively low (1.5 degree) temperature increases could result in long term sea level rises as great as 9 meters. And as an aside, as the ocean is much deeper than 100 meters, a 9 meter sea level rise is not a 9% rise. Likewise for the paper discussed by AS in 43. It contains an interesting discussion of detecting seasonal temperature variations over the holocene, which should greatly refine future temperature estimates. But fig 3 deal only with Holocene temperatures. The authors do not call Eemian temperature records into question, but rather use them as a test of their theory of the main driver of regional SST in the Holocene. In other words, they consider them generally accurate, and reliable enough for hypothesis testing. AS's skepticism about Eemian temperature records is something he brings to these papers, not something he finds in them. -
dana1981 at 01:11 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Great post, Dan. I think the (modest) success of the BC carbon tax thus far has flown mostly under the radar. Good comments by Andy S in #18 too. It's amazing people criticize a system which has caused a net decrease in taxes and encourages carbon emissions reductions. It's a great first step by BC. -
CBDunkerson at 00:42 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Yeah, the tax being 'too low' to solve the problem isn't really the issue IMO. Rather, this BC tax is a great proof of concept in that it shows you can implement a carbon tax while simultaneously lowering the overall tax burden for all but a small pool of heavy polluters. The only problem is that this reality doesn't seem to be getting out. Instead you've got the insanity of people like 'John Hunter' in the article complaining about a tax which actually puts money in their pocket. The old saying, 'There are none so blind as those who will not see' comes to mind. Proving that a carbon tax won't hurt people economically doesn't do any good if they are so deeply in denial that they disbelieve it. -
Alexandre at 00:09 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Dan, I agree with you that this tax is still low: it's far lower than what's suggested by Hansen, Stern, or even Nordhaus. The latter uses an economic model that underestimates climate impacts and calculates an "optimal" carbon tax of US$27/ton. The formers point to much higher amounts. I don't remember Stern, but Hansen's figure is US$115. OTOH, I also agree with you that one isolated region would only export emissions if it sets a too high carbon tax. So it was a commendable initiative of BC, and let's hope this encourages others to take these first steps too. Thanks for the post. -
Ken Lambert at 00:05 AM on 9 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Tom Curtis #47 A pretty incoherent attempt at projection Tom. So I withheld the Trenberth information from everybody when I was correcting Sphaerica's gross error when he claimed that the incident angle of the sun at the north pole was 66 degrees? Hello? Are you and Sphaerica a tag team? Do I have to reply with everything I know about the subject to debunk a particular error of his, just so you might be able to incidentally correct your gross errors too?? Preposterous. Your comment: "a) Even if the Arctic receives no more additional energy than any other region of the Earth, it receives an additional 6.4*10^20 Joules per year energy (Trenberth); and b) The total annual energy budget of additional ice melt is about 1*10^20 Joules (Trenberth again), or about one sixth of what the Arctic could be expected to receive based on your argument." You still don't get it. Dr Trenberth's number for Arctic ice melt is 1E20 Joules/year. That is his measure of the net heat gain. No mention of any other Arctic contribution in his paper of Aug09 (Tracking the Earth's global energy). You quote Flanner's comparable number as 9-10E20 Joules/year. I say that even if you assume a uniform distribution of Dr Trenberth's total global heat gain of 145E20 Joules/year - then the 4.4% Arctic portion would be 6.4E20 Joules/year which is still a deal less than Flanner's 9-10E20 Joules/year. A uniform distribution would imply that both incidence angle and albedo were *average* for the whole planet. Now we know that ice and snow has much higher surface albedo than forest, land and ocean, so the average surface albedo for the Arctic would be higher than the average for the planet. Also we know that the average incidence angle of the sun in the Arctic (and the highest latitudes) is the lowest on the planet - certainly much less than the average incidence angle for the whole planet. So from these two facts we know that the Arctic has a higher surface albedo and a lower incidence angle than the average for the planet. Hence it must reflect more of a lower average intensity of solar radiation. Therefore the Arctic must absorb less (much less) than the uniformly distributed portion of 6.4E20 Joules/yr. Dr Trenberth's figure of 1E20 Joules/yr is about one sixth of the uniformly distributed portion of 6.4E20 Joules/yr and than means that the two factors I have described (higher albedo and lower incidence angle) have a large combined effect of reducing the heat gain to about 15% of the average for the whole planet. Flanner's number is simply impossible unless the polar Arctic has a way of attracting 50% more energy from the sun than the average 4.4% patch of anywhere else on Earth. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:03 AM on 9 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
Wikipedia: “In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming. [ 2 ]" [2]- it’s Paterson et. al. 2008. -
Alexandre at 00:00 AM on 9 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Gilles at 17:03 PM on 8 April, 2011 Fair point. I guess the carbon tax is catastrophic AND innocuous, then... (new skeptcial argument for the list?) -
Nick Palmer at 23:50 PM on 8 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
I listened to the interview with Dr. Christy, linked to by Arkadiusz. Head vice necessary... He basically says that the climate is changing up and down and that what they have measured over the last hundred years - just under a degree - is small. He then goes on to consciously or unconsciously repeat the relatively new denier meme that claims that even if we cut emissions tomorrow it would only cool us off by 0.1 degrees - a very small cooling effect. He quotes Tim Flannery's statement that "if the entire world cut their CO2 emissions immediately, the world together, that temperatures won't be detectably reducing for one thousand years" He also claims that if we built a thousand new nuclear power stations we wouldn't "affect the climate by more than a tenth of a degree after a hundred years" He is repeating the relatively recent denier meme that if we took the heroic/foolish efforts that the IPCC etc are mandating, that the climate would only cool off by 0.1 degrees, so therefore what's the point of doing all that to achieve so little? The deceptiveness of this meme is it "accidentally" leaves out that if we DON'T cut emissions that temperatures will continue to rise. He doesn't mention the probability of positive feedbacks or even the possibility that they exist, which is disingenuous at best. -
DSL at 23:46 PM on 8 April 2011Models are unreliable
Ggf: "I have not suggested that warming will not happen or that the consequences will not be bad. I am saying that i do not believe that climate models are capable of making predictions as to what will happen with a sufficient level of confidence to spend large amounts of money based on their predictions." You have to establish a position on the science before you can establish a position on the modeling. If you understand the science, then you understand the basis for what (and how) gets put into the models. If you understand things this far, then you shouldn't be saying, "I'm not saying that . . ." Instead, you should be saying, "Yes, warming must occur based on the physics, and feedbacks (positive and negative) must occur because nature is all of a piece, and the warming will happen in this time period if we do business-as-usual because of the residence time of GHGs and the nature of the feedbacks." If you understand that and you're still engaged in trying to find a reason not to mitigate, then you're in questionable territory. Again, the models tell us when and where the ICBM we fired will hit. They might be wrong by a few miles or a few minutes--indeed, significantly wrong, but that doesn't mean we're not responsible for the firing, nor does it mean that the ICBM will not eventually cause destruction. Unless, of course, you're suggesting that the models are totally wrong, and that brings us back to the science. "What i am also suggesting is that unless we can be confident that what is being proposed in terms of emissions cut will work we should be cautious about spending large amounts of money on what may be the wrong response." Have you ever had convincing evidence that a very expensive solution would work? What would convince you in the case of GW? How long would the models have to be within or near their error bars? If the modeled trend is below the observed reality over the next five years, is that a model failure that would also cause you to say, "No mitigation!" The models have been a little off in this way with Arctic sea ice--too much too soon. -
Gilles at 22:11 PM on 8 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
""multi-decadal" oscillation is not very plausible as there is no mechanism (unlike for example ENSO) explaining why/how it ocurrs, and it doesn't seem to even exist in the pre-satelite data." really? we have no explanation for multidecadal oscillations so they don't exist? you should write that to NOAA... http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/climate-ao.shtmlModerator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] O.K, so the next step, what is the AO and oscillation in, excatly? One wonders of course why you didn't mention this earlier ;o) BTW, if you are wondering what I am doing, I am just trying to getyou to state your position on this clearly and unambiguous, with sufficient detail to determine whether it has merit. That is the way scientific discussions work. -
Gilles at 22:06 PM on 8 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
"The historical data shown here strongly suggests there is no (quasi-)periodic variability at this timescale" First even the legend said they're not really reliable because of the lack of data. I asked for the error bars : where are they? are error bars also pointless and a "non-starter question" ? And even if you believe in these historical data, as I said, they show that the ice was pretty much insensitive to the change of temperature at the beginning of century. So the very same historical data contradict your model that " warming ... cause melting of the ice (and for albedo feedback to tend to hasten that melting)." At least you should address this issue. CBDunkerson : it seems that you're slowly discovering the existence of spontaneous limit- cycles ...Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] O.K., so the historical data are "unreliable", however it does at least exist, and it gives no support whatsoever to the existence of multi-decadal oscillations. That means it is still more credible than your hypothesis of multi-decadal oscillations, for which you have presented precisely zero evidence, and for which you have not even been able to propose a causal mechanism.Secondly, the historical data do not necessarily say that the ice is insensitive to the change in temperature as temperature is not the only thing that controls ice loss, and those factors need to be considered. It is also possible that the earlier warming did cause reductions in sea ice volume, but not extent.
Now it is time to "put up or shut up", what evidence do you have that multi-decadal oscillations exist in sea ice extent or suggested causal meachanism. If you can't come up with something, then you objection is no more reasonable than "melting is caused by the orbit of Pluto", or "it is being stolen by little green men from uranus", or astrology.
-
Andy Skuce at 21:58 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
As a BC resident myself, I'll add two observations to Dan's excellent article. One is that the carbon tax was introduced by a right-of-centre government and was, for a while, opposed by the left-of-centre NDP. The other is that if any politician proposes to repeal this revenue-neutral tax, then they will, in effect, be arguing for an income tax increase. A carbon tax like BC's is simpler and administratively cheaper than a cap-and-trade policy. Since it also reduces income or payroll taxes, it ought to be popular among free-market enthusiasts who recognize that climate change is a serious problem. But, as Dan mentioned, the level of BC's tax needs to be much higher to gain real traction on carbon emissions. That's not possible until BC's trading partners start to adopt similar policies. -
michael sweet at 21:54 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
It is interesting that skeptics want instant results from a carbon tax, while supporters point out that it takes time for people to install insulation to save on carbon emmisions. I suppose the skeptics think Paris was built in a single day! We can see in California that when energy is more expensive people use less. And they still have empty caves for new people to come and live in. -
Gilles at 21:52 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
I don't think a tax can produce a major recession - a tax is only redistributive. What I questioned was if it had really led to a measurable improvement of energy efficiency. And don't forget that improving energy efficiency doesn't guarantee at all that global emissions will recede - most likely they will keep increasing but with more wealth produced. Your figures show precisely that the increase is entirely due to developing countries, which are very far from thinking they can reduce their emissions -that are actually much lower per capita than ours. So whatever you spare here, there are plenty of poor people throughout the world who will be very happy to use it (I'm not saying it's bad). -
CBDunkerson at 21:48 PM on 8 April 2011Arctic Ice March 2011
logicman: "a warmer Arctic causes greater precipitation of snow which no longer melts entirely in summer. Within a decade or two it becomes obvious that a new ice age has started." I've wondered about this theory for quite a while. One aspect of it which I've read about is a possible 'shutdown' of some of the major ocean currents (due to changing salinity) causing less warm water to be transferred towards the Arctic. However, wouldn't that be a self-regulating effect? That is, loss of heat transfer from the tropics would cause the Arctic to start cooling again... which would cause more ice formation... which would again change ocean currents... which would allow the ongoing greenhouse warming to again become dominant... et cetera. Likewise the heavy snow bit you reference. As I recall that was a theory that the change in albedo from all that snow would be enough to prevent the snow from melting and trigger a re-freeze of the Arctic. But wouldn't that then cause the increased snowfall to stop be melted out by the ongoing greenhouse warming? Obviously loss of the Arctic ice will have a significant impact on weather patterns throughout the northern hemisphere (if not the globe), but I have a hard time seeing how it could result in a swing back to an ice covered Arctic without that then cancelling out the factors which were causing it. The only ongoing long term change we are seeing right now is the rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Doesn't that mean everything else will be feedbacks around that trend? Or are there really potential negative feedbacks strong enough to completely cancel out and indeed reverse the warm forcing which caused them? -
Bern at 21:36 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Gilles @ 15: Canadell also points out that the financial crisis did not affect all countries equally. While carbon dioxide emissions dropped in 2009 in places like North America, Europe and Japan, they increased substantially in China and India. Looking ahead, the researchers note that the International Monetary Fund is projecting an increase of global GDP by 4.8% in 2010, which will lead to an increase in global emissions of at least 3% this year. from this ABC story, which also states emissions fell 1.3% as a result of the financial crisis. 15 seconds with Google was able to get me to that page. I'm sure if I searched a bit more, I could find some more concrete numbers for 2010 emissions. The point that Dan makes in the article above seems pretty clear to me: A modest carbon tax will not cause major economic disruption, and will provide an incentive for people to reduce energy usage. It may even save them money. Another way of looking at it: Now that there's a carbon tax in British Columbia, you can be sure that every business operating there (and many individuals too) is going to spend a least a little bit of effort on improving energy efficiency. A lot of the impacts of that will only be felt years down the track - kind of like fuel efficiency standards for cars. If you legislated today that new cars had to use 1/10th the fuel of current cars, it would take years before you saw a significant drop in total fuel consumption, and probably 20 years before you reduced consumption by 90%. On the flip side - if you refuse to implement better efficiency now, you'll pay the price for decades, in higher energy costs. I'm interested in finding out how much Mr Hunter paid for gas before he added insulation and turned down his thermostat. Was it more than he currently pays with the carbon tax? -
CBDunkerson at 21:32 PM on 8 April 2011A Plan for 100% Energy from Wind, Water, and Solar by 2050
Vladimer, first you falsely say that renewable energy sources like wind, water, and solar are not currently technologically advanced enough to replace fossil fuels... and that therefor we should not pursue them on the assumption that they will eventually become so. Then you turn around and say that radical advances in nuclear fission power and even fusion(!) power are right around the corner and thus should be the path we follow. I refer your argument 2 to your argument 1. Why go with technology which may become viable rather than technology which already is viable? -
les at 21:30 PM on 8 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
42 RSVP You want to be really careful making comments like that around here. Your outcome "nothing will happen" requires feedbacks, models, non-linear systems etc. etc. All things that climate change skeptics believe undermine any prediction. -
Gilles at 21:18 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
NB : three years ago was in 2008, just before the worst crisis since WWII. CO2 emissions have generally decreased in western countries thanks to (!) this crisis. So the effect of the tax should be estimated by comparison between comparable countries or states that applied it, or not. -
CBDunkerson at 21:16 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
rhjames, when the U.S. government collects taxes and then uses those funds to build outdated ships and planes which the military insists they don't need and will never use what is that but a wealth transfer from the country as a whole to the people who will build those ships and planes (and especially the CEOs of the companies)? When a congressman gets money for road repairs in his district put into a bill what is that but wealth transfer from the country as a whole to his district - which no longer has to pay to do the work and gets the construction jobs and improved roads? The vast majority of what governments do is redistribute wealth. More frequently from the poor to the rich than vice versa. This carbon tax differs only in that it is transparent. It transfers wealth from carbon polluters to non-polluters. Very clear and simple, though, based on the article, some people still can't manage to grasp it. Further, administrative costs should be lower than most other forms of tax. Collection basically works like a sales tax impacting only energy products, which are provided by a small number of companies and thus easily monitored without a huge staff. Likewise, distribution is a simple payout. Very little bureaucracy involved; just money in and money out. There are wonderful machines called computers which are very good at doing that sort of thing cheaply. That said, the link provided by Dan Moutal shows that this 'carbon tax and return' was accompanied by several other tax reductions. This reduces the transparency / makes it more similar to 'business as usual' tax policy. For instance, back in the 80s Reagan raised payroll taxes (which mostly impact the poor) and lowered income taxes (which mostly impact the rich). BC is pursuing the same concept... lowering existing taxes to offset raising a new one. Thus far they've paid out quite a bit more than they've taken in, but that may change as the carbon price rises. It's never easy to precisely balance these things. -
Tom Curtis at 20:40 PM on 8 April 2011A Flanner in the Works for Snow and Ice
Ken Lambert @43: First, I did not leave out relevant information of which I was aware. As previously indicated, I was not, and am not aware of the total increase in energy out in the Arctic summer due to the ice albedo feedback. Therefore I did not include that information. What I did include in my very first response to you was a direct reference to Flanner's article, and the forcing (ie, net additional downward flus - net additional upward flux) that he calculated, which was more relevant than just the additional upward flux. Therefore there is no basis for your imputation that I willfully left out relevant information - and I resent the imputation. In contrast, in your first comment, to which I responded your clearly discuss only areas and angles in an attempt to argue the additional energy received in the Arctic as a result of the ice albedo effect is inconsequential. You did not include the additional relevant information that you clearly were aware of. Specifically: a) Even if the arctic receives no more additional energy than any other region of the Earth, it receives an additional 6.4*10^20 Joules per year energy (Trenberth); and b) The total annual energy budget of additional ice melt is about 1*10^20 Joules (Trenberth again), or about one sixth of what the Arctic could be expected to receive based on your argument. These two facts are clearly very relevant to the argument you made against Sphaerica on 0:38 AM, April 4th on the Arctic Ice March thread. Yet you with held this information. Nobody has condemned you for withholding that relevant information. But you have attempted to suggest wrong doing by me for purportedly doing exactly as you did, when in fact I did not. Why? And do not pretend that you "quoted the calculations" of Dr Trenberth straight away. You did not do so until your second response to me, which is to say, your third post in the sequence, and two posts after you should have brought in that relevant information, by your standard. There is nothing of substance in what remains of your post. You again try to suggest that I must account for all of the incoming energy before it can be acknowledged to exist. Apparently, in your mind, we cannot admit to knowing one thing unless we can claim to know all things. You again cannot distinguish between the net incoming flux and the net forcing (incoming flux - outgoing flux) in comparing my calculation with Flanner. And again, without any basis beyond an argument from relative area, you insist that Flanner's analysis must be false. The simple fact is, the ice albedo feedback (dominant in the arctic) is far stronger per unit area than the water vapour feedback (dominant in the tropics). This follows because changes in albedo are linearly related to changes in incoming energy. Halving the albedo will double the effective incoming short wave energy. In contrast, GHG effects result in a constant effect for each successive doubling of the concentration of the GHG. It is hardly surprising that areas in which there is a strong ice albedo effect show a forcing response disproportionately large compared to their surface area.Moderator Response: [mc] fixed open link tag -
Alexandre at 20:32 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Never mind that Hunter guy. People will always complain. It's revenue neutral (actually more than that), and it's taxing an undesirable thing, as Dan pointed out. What else can you want? -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 20:08 PM on 8 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
Does the Agulhas Current amplify global temperatures during super-interglacials? Turney & Jones, 2010.: “Arguably one of the best super-interglacials for investigating this conundrum is the Last Interglacial (LIG), spanning the period ca. 130–116 ka ago and characterised by solar insolation anomalies caused by the changing Earth's orbit (Harrison et al., 1995; Otto-Bliesner et al., 2006). There is some uncertainty, however, regarding the global temperature during this period, with estimates ranging from 0.1 to >2°C warmer than present (CLIMAP Project Members, 1984; White, 1993; Hansen, 2005; Rohling et al., 2008).” “Greatly reduced Arctic sea ice area, changes in ice sheet topography and freshwater influences on the Atlantic Meridional Ocean Circulation (AMOC) have all been proposed as possible feedbacks for driving higher temperatures, but no consensus has been reached (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2006; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2010). Accompanying these changes, recent estimates of sea level corrected for changes in gravity, solid Earth deformation and other effects have suggested the LIG was 6.6–9.4 m higher than today ...” Conclusion: If only it was warmer by 0.1 deg C (Eemian - Holocene) is as much as 9?% difference in sea levels can be explained by factors other than temperature - 1.5 deg C - as they want the paper - it's 9?% difference in sea levels can be explained differences in temperature? Such is the extent of our understanding. For the practice of comparing Eemian - Holocene; is a purely "academic. " -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 19:33 PM on 8 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
@Tom Curtis A propos Hansen’s paper: - “It was written in a bit of a rush when the editor told me there was a last chance to submit a paper before the book went to press,” - says Hansen in blog (...) That should be sufficient for us here ... I recommend the analysis (especially graphs - Fig . 3.) here: Holocene and Eemian sea surface temperature trends as revealed by alkenone and Mg/Ca paleothermometry, Leduc, et al., 2010., to be aware of our ignorance - regarding the differences - Eemian - Holocene. -
RSVP at 18:33 PM on 8 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
It is hard to refute the notion that if all the ice in Greenland were to melt, the oceans would rise 7 or 8 meters (or whatever the new level turns out to be), as the concept only involves geometric considerations. On the other hand, for all that ice to melt, it requires a specific incremental energy expenditure over time. Furthermore, all that extra ocean water will be that much more of an energy sink for cooling the Earth, given that water in liquid form will do this more than ice that is currently trapped. Where I am going with this, is that the problem is more complex and tends to favor this event not happening so fast. -
chris1204 at 18:33 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Dan Moutal @ 6: "It makes no sense for BC to get too far ahead of everyone else. We took a first modest step, but we can't take too many more until other jurisdictions catch up, otherwise we risk pushing GHG emissions out of BC and into neighboring provinces and states, which will hurt BC, and do nothing for the climate." This sounds remarkably close to arguments being mounted by carbon tax opponents for not having a carbon tax in Australia. The difference is merely one of degree - you impose a very small tax as opposed to a zero tax. Paradoxically, it also is very close to the position advocated by the oft maligned Pielke Jr in "The Climate Fix" who argues for the gradual introduction of a modest carbon tax. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 18:22 PM on 8 April 2011Christy Crock #1: 1970s Cooling
1. Several prominent scientists said in the 70's about global cooling. The fact that - certainly not the majority, and not having the most knowledgeable. Christy take this as an example of the theory - a wide scientific basis - which (now) has proved be wrong. 2. He says that, and currently there are (as then - the seventies), important questions to the AGW theory - models of the IPCC. How significant? This explains for example the last publication of the Christy et al., 2010.: What Do Observational Datasets Say About Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends Since 1979?: “Using observed trend values, the observed SRs for TLT are significantly less than 1.4, being ~0.8 ± 0.3. This suggests that on average, the model amplification of surface temperature trends is overdone, and that the observed atmosphere manages to adjust to heating processes without allowing (over decades) a temperature change in the troposphere at a higher rate than it changes near the surface.” t is possible therefore a fundamental error. How important? “We fully expect others to become engaged and produce defensible estimates of trends which may or may not support our conclusions.” May we all have so much of “humility” as Dr. Christy ... I also recommend the latest interview with Dr. ChristyModerator Response: [DB] "Several prominent scientists said in the 70's about global cooling." Unsubstantiated hearsay? Name them. -
Dan Moutal at 18:17 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Reference for my last comment -
Dan Moutal at 18:13 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ rhjames Total money collected by the tax = $848 million Total money returned to BC residents = $1042 million Perhaps the BC government is also dreaming -
rhjames at 18:03 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
ubrew12 - There's a big difference between taking our money to build things, and taking money to give it back in cash. Dan Moutal - I think you're dreaming if you think a carbon tax doesn't mean a big new expensive governmental department. -
SNRatio at 17:53 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
Such a tax doesn't have to be very high to have profound long-term effects. But they tend to kick in gradually, so they may be hard to discern from noise and more obvious effects. First off, it makes energy use a little bit more expensive, biasing individual decisions about energy use, systems designs, insulation standards etc towards energy efficiency and savings. Second, it boosts the competitiveness of renewable sources. For instance, you can either use natural gas or a combination of solar and heat pump to produce domestic hot water. (With the phasing in of renewable electricity, the heat pump contribution will be increasingly renewable, starting at about pari with gas for 100% fossile generated electricity.) Typically, investments will be much higher for the renewable way, but operating costs much lower. As for the effects of the tax, there may be an inverse Robin Hood effect if revenue neutrality is implemented by relative tax cuts. With flat tax reduction/payback, it may work the other way around. But in any case, the tax gives Mr Hunter an extra payback for his insulation efforts: He uses less than average gas, and therefore pays less than average tax, but gets the average tax cut back. So complaining, he is actually asking for worse condition for himself. -
RSVP at 17:43 PM on 8 April 2011Geologist Richard Alley’s ‘Operators Manual’ TV Documentary and Book… A Feast for Viewers and Readers
In the film trailer, Alley says, "...but a growing population needs more and more clean energy." If there isn't even enough clean energy for the people around today, how could there be "more and more" going forward? We seem to have a slight backlog issue. -
Dan Moutal at 17:14 PM on 8 April 2011How I lived through a carbon tax and survived to tell the tale
@ rhjames Since governments already have all the infrastructure they need to collect taxes the administration costs are almost nill. @ Gilles It is too early to tell. Anecdotal evidence points to a small reduction, but nothing concrete just yet. But no one should expect anything drastic from such modest policy. If we want larger cuts in emissions (and I do) then we will need a larger carbon tax, whose cost can be offset by larger tax reductions elsewhere. It just makes so much sense to me. It is better to tax the bad (GHG emissions), than the good (income). But we also need to be realistic. It makes no sense for BC to get too far ahead of everyone else. We took a first modest step, but we can't take too many more until other jurisdictions catch up, otherwise we risk pushing GHG emissions out of BC and into neighboring provinces and states, which will hurt BC, and do nothing for the climate. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 17:10 PM on 8 April 2011Has sea level rise accelerated since 1880?
@Moderator Well, we quote - but would not sense of to change the references cited. “Various researchers going back nearly a century have attempted to isolate the cause of the ice-age cycle. They have uncovered several factors--periodic changes in Earth's orbit around the sun, a wobble in our planet's axis of rotation, for example--that seem to be in play. But so far no one has presented the definitive answer.” Conclusion 1. We do not know the causes, not only glacial cycle - but the rapid increase sea level. Conclusion second. Changes in the surface of the glacial (MIS) 5a were much higher than today. “That suggests the glaciers were melting at a tremendous rate. Even half that rate would still be "a major finding," Dorale says. So it "has major implications for future concerns with sea-level change." Agreed. Changes may be rapidly acceleration - and it's perfectly natural causes. Only a what changes? “Still mysterious, however, are other data, taken from Barbados and New Guinea, that also suggest rising sea level about 80,000 years ago but not nearly as much of a change.” So speaking about the global rate of sea level rise - this is a misunderstanding. Even at the present they are regions where sea levels are not rising - and even decreases (consensus - the majority - rising). This does not affect the application (by looking at the geological past) that significant (and rapid) changes in sea level - from natural causes - it is "standard ". C. The current 2-3 thousand. years, "peace" - is something "unusual" - except "to the rule".
Prev 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 Next
