Recent Comments

Prev  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  Next

Comments 95801 to 95850:

95801. pbjamm at 03:21 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       apiratelooksat50(177) "Since, apparently it matters, would the regular posters here be willing to list their degrees and experience?" Does it matter? I do not need an advanced degree to accept the findings of experts who do. If I wish to contradict them and their findings I had better be able to show either (1)my work or (2)some evidence that I have extensively studied the subject at hand. (1) requires a research paper of some sort. (2) can be managed with a relevant scientific degree. With that said, if I claim to have advanced degrees in Fluid Dynamics, Thermodynamics, Climatology and Rock History who can contradict me?
95802. Dikran Marsupial at 03:20 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech@182 It is not possible to verify your list of 850 papers that 'Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm', as it appears that whether a paper supports skepticism of AGW alarm is rather subjective, especially once you include the word (alarm). There are plenty of papers in your list that suggest that AGW is likely to be a problem, for example: Joan Feynmana, "Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?, (Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, pp. 1173-1180, March 2007) A paper that shows that in the past, climate change (caused by changes in solar activity) has caused the collapse of societies in the past. No cause for alarm there then! The paper provides no evidence to suggest the current warming is due to an increase in solar activity (we measure it these days, so we would know). So I can't see why this paper should be a cause for any skepticism regarding AGW "alarm", unless of course one was rather uninformed.
95803. mozart at 02:50 AM on 15 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Brookes: Ever heard about the Dust Bowl? These things happen, and unless you can statisticaly prove the floods, droughts etc are increasing in frequency, they are just the tail of the probability curve. One thing that would be hard to deal with now though, with huge population dependency on the global growing regions,is another mini Ice Age. There were three minima with major agricultural declines, 1650, 1770, and 1850.....extrapolate.
       Moderator Response: We are not going to have another mini ice age anytime soon. See (and comment on) the Post "What would happen if the sun fell to Maunder Minimum levels?." For more detail about the causes of the last mini ice age, see (and comment on) the Post "A detailed look at the Little Ice Age."
95804. Eric (skeptic) at 02:44 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       #175: there may or may not be more alarm papers than non-alarm papers in the denominator. But there are a lot more papers there. Your job, if you choose to accept it poptech, is to focus on the numerator and clean it up. As a token AGW science defender on a U.S. conservative forum, one of my biggest problems is disorganized lists such as yours without quality control that get cherry picked so I have to spend time explaining why N2 is not a greenhouse gas.
95805. Daniel Bailey at 02:33 AM on 15 February 2011
       It's cooling
       Yup. Still happening: Yes, Virginia, Polar Amplification is Real: The Yooper
95806. John Brookes at 02:04 AM on 15 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       On the Australian ABC's 7:30 report tonight they talked to someone from Munich Re, who are especially interested in disasters because they are re-insurers. The Munich Re person explained how weather related disasters in Australia were increasing rapidly, and that Munich Re attributed some of them to climate change. Yet the skeptics keep insisting that you can't blame AGW for any weather events, and they keep saying that there is no evidence for increased extreme weather events.
95807. KR at 02:02 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       One of the largest problems I have with PopTechs list is that it is inconsistent. For example: the inclusion of the Gerlich and Tscheuschner 2009 paper denying the greenhouse effect entirely, along with the Lindzen papers arguing low climate sensitivity to the acknowledged greenhouse effect, mean that the list makes no consistent point. The contents are simply self-contradictory. To quote: "Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said 'one ca'n't believe impossible things.' 'I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the White Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast..." PopTech, it might be a useful list if it were categorized as to argument, so that particular issues could have a body of work supporting a discussion; preferably separated between peer-reviewed science and policy papers. Currently, however, it's just a number (850 at the moment) of disjointed papers and articles pointing in every direction possible, a pile of jackstraws - lacking coherence and utility.
95808. muoncounter at 01:57 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       #174: "hence the exact number won't matter - it will dwarf 850." Even 'the 850' is still inflated - it includes policy papers which have no science content. If PT wants to challenge the science, he must stick to science papers, not the opinions of policy wonks.
95809. Ron Crouch at 01:57 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Why is it that you avoid addressing issues that others in this thread have raised Poptech? You insisted that certain of your questions be addressed and they have, but you don't give the same consideration in return. Is it a case that you don't know or you simply clam up when things don't go your way? The best way to treat your list of 850 would be to transpose it onto toilet paper so that at least some good use might be made of it. I'm sorry but the generous figure of 2.4% dissent that I gave you illustrates your weak position. There will always be some level of dissent, that's normal. When you come across something that is Earth shattering enough to sway the 95% opinion that you and others are not barking up the wrong tree, let us know. You can harp over the numbers all you want but it does not change the complexion of things one iota. In the mean time your arguments are as weak as an individual in Germany who contends that he can use "geometric harmonic index" to explain global temperature trends over the last ~5,000 years, and extrapolate it a further 1,000 years into the future. Go check it out, maybe it qualifies for your list. As I said before, your time would be better spent if you set your mind to be constructive because you add nothing worthwhile to any debate or discussion
95810. les at 01:43 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       173,174: fair enough... in fact - and this is nit picking - it wont, as they say, go beyond result 1000 (give 10 results per page, that's page 100)... very odd. If someone has the time, you can always do it year by year, of course... so not impossible to verify. but the post does say 200 pages. Just to save a little face... we can verify the rogerpielkejr.blogspot post... it's only 1 page ;)
95811. apiratelooksat50 at 01:40 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Since, apparently it matters, would the regular posters here be willing to list their degrees and experience?
       Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] It doesn't matter, unless perhaps someone tried to make an argument from authority based on their own claimed expertise, in which case it would be for them to demonstrate the support for their claim. In science the merit of an argument is based on its internal consistency and support from experiment, observation and theory; the source of the argument is irrelevant.
95812. Dikran Marsupial at 01:38 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech@175 Go get yourself a copy of the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report (you know the one that demonstrates AGW is a cause for concern) and count the references. Then remember that the IPCC report is only a summary overview of the key research.
95813. Stu at 01:28 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Yeah I got what he meant Les. It will tell you how many results there are, but wont let you see any beyond page 100. Of course Poptech would not be satisfied until every one had been gone over with a fine tooth-comb to find hints of skepticism via his foolishly broad definition of 'alarm', whereas all the rest of us can see that there are undoubtedly way, way more papers that conclude that AGW is cause for alarm (by Poptech's definition) than the other way around, and hence the exact number won't matter - it will dwarf 850.
95814. mozart at 01:09 AM on 15 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       @Tamblyn: you touch on two related problems, that are ultimately just as challenging as climate...population growth and resource depletion. The happy clappy thought that science is going to find ways to replace scarce metals and energy sources for future generations, is incredibly optimistic. Malthus will ultimately be proven correct.
95815. les at 00:59 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       #168, 169 Poppy Tech: Check Mate Anyone understand what he's saying? I tried Robs search and it works much the same, no 1,000 result limit. I've no idea what the Google Scholar Help link is on about, but it's under the heading of "Citation Export", so I suppose it's something to do with the API, judging by the other help questions... Makes on wonder about the reliability of his list if it involves using advanced technology like google, without him having a clear understanding of that technology...
95816. John Brookes at 00:59 AM on 15 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       My problem with any economic analysis is just how you quantify the negative effects of warming. I can imagine doing this if you say, "we'll have 10% more droughts", and then calculate the rise in the price of food. But what if the rise in the price of food leads to starvation, riots and civil war? Is that factored into the costs? If Queensland floods more often, how do you calculate the cost of broken hearted farmers having to walk off the land? On the other hand, when you look at the cost of cutting CO2 emissions, how do we factor in human ingenuity? Its a bit like someone in 1950 trying to quantify the influence of the computer - very hard to do accurately, with a tendency to be too conservative about our ability to make things better and better.
95817. Dikran Marsupial at 00:57 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       BP@44 Marcus' challenge clearly relates to global temperatures, so pointing out there have been occasions when "NH Extratropics" have warmed faster clearly does not show the claim to be "unsubstantiated" because that is a regional warming, not a global warming. "it is your turn to show us an *unnatural* mechanism that you think was responsible for warming a thousand years ago." Straw man (and a rather silly one at that). Nobody is saying that warming a thousand years ago was unnatural. More importantly, the hypothesis of AGW is not based on an assertion that the warming we have observed is unprecedented, the hypothesis is based on a mechanism with observational, experimental and theoretical support, not on the observed warming even being unusual. It is only unusual in that it cannot be explained by natural mechanisms, given our current understanding of climate physics. It can be explained however, if include anthropogenic influcences.
95818. Stu at 00:54 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Nope. Should be possible, like I said, to take a sample and extrapolate. I certainly can't be bothered tho - you just ain't worth it.
95819. Ken Lambert at 00:48 AM on 15 February 2011
       Guardian article: Australia's recent extreme weather isn't so extreme anymore
       Daniel Bailey #27 Deleting my posts won't change the facts Daniel.. Johnd and I have made some simple logical points about the range of extreme events in Australia. To suggest that 30 years is a significant period to judge changes in flood/drought events is preposterous. Not even 100 years is a significant period when we have seen only one such other drought event (the Federation drought) and one other such flood event in Brisbane (the twin floods of 1893) of similar severity. Adelady - as Harry Butler famously said; "The Aboriginals were great naturalists but not great conservationists". They were not crash hot on science either - certainly not up for sailing 12000 miles around the world to observe the transit of Venus or inventing Harrisons clock to measure longitude. I have not read his 1824 log for some time but I seem to recall that John Oxley had observed debris high in the trees along the Brisbane river and the local Aborigines were quite agitated about floods - indicating that the 12m flood had been fairly recent in 1824. Our cruel and exploitative British ancestors were actually rather good at recording things and navigating their way around - if not too hot at bush survival. I would expect that the 12m height of the debris was a fairly accurate estimate if not actually measured.
       Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] You erroneously assume I deleted your post, which I did not do. My comment was for others to read on the dichotomy of your inconsistent position WRT time series and statistical significance. As to the content of your comments, as long as it complies with the Comment Policy, I leave them alone.
95820. Stu at 00:29 AM on 15 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       No-one has the time to verify that many results anyway. Maybe one person with too much time on their hands would look at all publications from a certain year and extrapolate from there using data for all published articles. Anyway, the obvious point remains that regardless of the exact numbers involved, you have 850 papers (some of shall we say, less than stellar quality?) and there are thousands and thousands of climate papers out there that evidently implicitely work from the grounding that AGW is happening or explicitely state that it is. If they didn't, they'd be on your list right? So, are you denying that there are vastly more papers than your 850 that explicitely or implicitely accept that AGW is real (even the parts you might find 'alarming'), just because the exact number of those papers is so large it can't easily be quantified? I know there are more grains of sand on a beach than 850... but I can't count them all. I guess that means by Poptech's logic that his list has as many 'skeptical' papers as there are grains of sand on a beach?
95821. caroza at 00:23 AM on 15 February 2011
       I want to earn my future, not inherit it
       Well said and + 1 vote. I hope everyone who visits Skeptical Science follows suit, and I wish more people your age would speak up about what is being bequeathed to them. (I frequently find myself feeling grateful for being 49 and not having children, because I won't have to see the worst of it, which is an awful way to think). Btw, does anyone know where we could nominate WUWT for Best Science Fiction blog....? ;)
95822. Berényi Péter at 00:18 AM on 15 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       #37 Marcus at 11:34 AM on 11 February, 201 When you & your fellow denialists can show us a *natural* mechanism for how the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade (the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years) over the last 30 years Marcus, you may notice that according to this reconstruction using RCS (Regional Curve Standardization) NH extratropics have warmed by 0.66°C in 40 years between 950 and 990 AD. That's a rate of +0.165°C/decade. As the reconstruction is based on tree rings, arctic amplification is left out. Also, it is a smoothed version of the actual temperature anomaly signal after a 40 year low-pass filter was applied. Therefore your claim the warming which is observed "over the last 30 years" is "the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years" is unsubstantiated. Now, as it is established, it is your turn to show us an *unnatural* mechanism that you think was responsible for warming a thousand years ago. Science 22 March 2002 Vol. 295 no. 5563 pp. 2250-2253 DOI: 10.1126/science.1066208 Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability Jan Esper, Edward R. Cook & Fritz H. Schweingruber It is very likely there were many more 30 year long periods during the last 10,000 years when rate of warming was faster than we see right now (followed by cooling later on, of course). Sorry, pink noise is just like that. In the good old days it was called natural variability.
95823. John Bruno at 23:38 PM on 14 February 2011
       Coral Reef Baselines
       I like your contrarian spirit! Hopefully, you apply that to science on both sides of the isle. "It looks like you're putting the imperative of the message before the science." In this case, I think correctly interpreting the science matters. But, I really just want to get at truth, not prove a point. Iv'e gotten myself into a lot of trouble with my colleagues for publishing a few papers that (like Sweatman et al) argue reef degradation isn't as severe as we thought (in terms of both coral loss and seaweed increase)(Bruno et al 2008 - warning 7GB file!, Schutte et al 2010) Some colleagues - for whom I do think the message is more important than the science - wrote a pretty tough critique (Hughes et al 2010) of our work, ie, the positions in that case are reversed! I am working on a "rebuttal post" (and publication) that in essence explains how they cherry pick to exaggerate the decline. (point being I'm a non-idiological critic)
95824. Dikran Marsupial at 23:37 PM on 14 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       Poptech@71 wrote "Show me a paper that does not mention "anthropogenic global warming" but explicitly endorses it." Just as an exercise, I tried to find the phrase "anthropogenic global warming" in the IPCC WG1 scientific basis report. I ocurrs exactly once and once only (on page 896, in a discsussion of the projected regional climate change for central and south america.) Now if that one reference were deleted, would the IPCC WG1 report no longer be "expicitly endorsing" "anthropogenic global warming" (other than in mere pedantry)? Poptechs challenge just demonstrates that he has not really looked at the literature, there are plenty of papers by e.g. James Hansen that do not contain the phrase "anthropgenic global warming", does that mean they don't support the hypothesis that much the observed warming since the late 20th century is due to an anthropogenic increase in long-lived GhGs? No, of course not. Poptech has been told before that if he wants to curate a resource that would actually be of benefit to the skeptics, he needs to do more than just collect papers. He needs to organise them by topic (much as John has done here at sks - which is why it is a vauable resource); but more importantly he needs to weed out the papers that are incorrect - otherwise he is sending skeptics into battle* armed with blanks. I'm sure they'll thank him for that! A skeptic version of skepticalscience would be a really good thing for the debate, if it would stop the same old tired canards being trotted out again and again, rather than encouraging their reuse, which is all that Poptech's list really achieves. * N.B. as far as the science there are no "sides" and no "battle" - we are all seeking the truth.
95825. Alexandre at 23:17 PM on 14 February 2011
       The Climate Show: Episode 6 and their own website
       It's a great podcast. I look forward each new episode. The relaxed tone, the special guests and the structure of different blocks (science, solutions, Skeptical Science, etc.) makes it an interesting, informative and easy hearing. I usually listen to it in the car, on my way to work.
95826. Bern at 23:16 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       @Glenn Tamblyn: that's not a very cheery thought to end on, though I fully understand where you're coming from. Given the advances in medical science we've seen over the past few decades, there's a distinct possibly some of us typing here today will live to see some of the consequences of global warming. When I think about the "head in the sand" attitude of many deniers & political conservatives, though, I sometimes despair for my baby daughter's future, and wonder if my grandchildren will have a habitable world to grow up in... one thing's for sure - it's not gonna be the same world I grew up in.
95827. RSVP at 22:49 PM on 14 February 2011
       Crichton's 'Aliens Cause Global Warming'
       Marcus In 37, you wrote... "When you & your fellow denialists can show us a *natural* mechanism for how the planet has warmed at +0.16 degrees per decade (the fastest rate in at *least* the last 10,000 years) over the last 30 years" According, the inverse must also be true. That some climate proxy exists with a 30 year or less resolution going back 10,000 years, proving that such a change has never occurred in the past.
95828. les at 22:32 PM on 14 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       As always, fascinating. The various means the "denial" community come up with of "disproving" stuff. It's going to keep philosophers of science, sociologists, psychologists etc. in work for years to come. I had no idea of Pop Tech's particular techniques before... and yet it seems to date back to 2009. Better Check That List / rogerpielkejr.blogspot "My attention has just be called to a list of "450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming." A quick count shows that they have 21 papers on the list by me and/or my father. Assuming that these are Hypothesis 1 type bloggers they'd better change that to 429 papers, as their list doesn't represent what they think it does." all be it with a smaller, and shrinking, numerator.
95829. BillyJoe at 21:31 PM on 14 February 2011
       PMEL Carbon Program: a new resource
       I suppose it is true to say that amateurs necessarily cherry pick but that they don't necessarily do so deliberately. They just aren't aware of, or don't have access to, the multitude of information that swamps their little cherry pick.
95830. BillyJoe at 21:18 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Dana, "Clear as mud, right?" Thanks for your, actually, very clear explanation. :)
95831. Riduna at 19:36 PM on 14 February 2011
       Meet The Denominator
       I wonder how PopTech would classify a paper by Cliff Ollier setting out novel views about Greenland ice loss, published in a reviewed journal at http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html Does PopTech take take into account that Olliers position is subsequently demolished by a paper published in the same journal a month later, at: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/geoscientist/features/page7523.html The first paper would I am sure get on the PopTech list but I very much doubt that any note would be taken of the second paper.
95832. Riduna at 18:36 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       A compelling refutation of Monckton (who read Classics at Cambridge, not Economics) and one which concludes with the all important question … what exactly are we waiting for? From government, we are waiting for political will and realisation that continued failure to adopt meaningful CO2 reduction targets and introduce an ETS, designed to prevent undermining its purpose (eg through trading in off-sets of little value), is not and never has been an option. Prime Minister Gillard appears more resolute than her predecessors. Given the scientific advice she is receiving and pressure from the Greens, she has little option but to seek passage of legislation and its implementation in 2011. Opposition insistence that adapting to climate change, paying the business sector to reduce emissions and adoption of a meaningless CO2 reduction target (5% below 2000 levels by 2020) makes them irrelevant. Acceptance of science based advice rather than that provided by climate change deniers (Monckton, Plimer et al) is unlikely. The Opposition has yet to explain how we can adapt to increasingly global warming and ocean acidification or pay for their effects. In reality, the attitude of the Opposition towards climate change and its consequences makes them irrelevant. Excluding fossil fuel industries, the business sector appears more interested in maintaining its competitiveness in domestic and international markets. It is likely to oppose an ETS or Carbon Tax which does not give them comfort in this regard, largely because it is ill-informed, particularly about new commercial opportunities The fossil fuel and coal fired energy industries faced with reduced domestic use of their products by 2020 and significant fall in exports by 2050 will not support measures hastening decline of very lucrative markets. In summary, the Australian government will act to abate CO2 emissions in 2011 and assist development of alternative energy sources, gas and geothermal, to replace fossil fuels. Transition to a low (then no) carbon economy will pose challenges for both government and industries dependent on fossil fuel use. They can and will be met with in-depth planning, so far not evident. Is Minister Combet the man for the job?
95833. HumanityRules at 18:01 PM on 14 February 2011
       Coral Reef Baselines
       "What have they got to do with science? Are you kidding? Science isn't just numbers in a lab notebook. If it isn't communicated (with peers, the public, policy makers) it isn't science. Addressing the distortion of science and attempting to explain that distortion (and explain the science clearly and honestly) is part of the job of a scientist (and of an educator, which I also am)." But what does this have to do with Sweatman's science? I can only see that what you're worrying about is what The Australian might say about Sweatman's science rather than what Sweatman is saying himself. It looks like you're putting the imperative of the message before the science. "My beef isn't about whether there is a step change, if so what caused it, etc. It is about what the GBR looked like before people, ie, what is the baseline. I don't think reef state in 1986 represented the baseline. Make sense?" Having read Sweatman's paper I don't actually see how this captures Sweatman's position. He seems to be unconvinced that your methodology captures the true trend. His position seems to be more accurtaely that the longer term trend is overstated not that it started in 1986. But I'm happy to defer to you and him on this and look forward to reading more.
95834. John Chapman at 16:47 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Mozart at #19. Natural gas is touted as a partial solution, but there is a catch. Comparisons tend to only look at the combustion of the gas, not the extraction from a well. Often CO2 is included in the source and it has to be separated. There is a new gas well in Western Australia (Browse)which when it comes on line shortly will produce 5% of the country's CO2 emissions!!! One gas well producing more CO2 than the whole of NZ! An appropriate carbon tax would have ensured that the project wasn't viable.
95835. iana at 16:45 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       The World Bank also do a great job of ignoring the science in their economic analyses: The World Bank, droughts, and voodoo economics
95836. Glenn Tamblyn at 16:39 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Mozart "But there is a limit to the speed we can convert to non carbon forms of energy. And a cost. Make that cost too high and economic activity will be threatened. The complex linkages and dependencies we have in our now global economy, are at least as fragile and delicate as those in our eco system. Food shortages and famine are just a perturbation away. We have to be wise about all this." Some scary factors: - At current rates most of the worlds fisheries will have collapsed by mid-century - Soil loss and fertility decline is on a similar trajectory. - Peak Oil is either upon us or very soon. - How far off is Peak Gas? In addition to their use as fuels they are essential ingredients in fertiliser production. - Major aquifers supplying water to grow food for nearly a billion people are in massive decline - in western India, Northern China, The American mid-west. So too Glacial melt and snow pack changes will have similar effects. - Population is predicted to hit 9-10 Billion around the same time. How far off is the worlds first Billion person famine? - As food shortages start to spread widely, how many more nations will be added to the list of 'failed states'? - If the failure of states starts to spread, what happens to international law, piracy, warfare, disease control & quarantine, international financial institutions and trade? And we haven't even mentioned Global Warming yet. Its impact is not just on the things we normally think of, but as a 'force miltiplier' for all the other threats. We are caught by a two edged sword. With our current arrangements for how the worlds economic and political systems work, if we try to change energy systems etc too quickly we seriously risk making these problems worse now. But if we don't act rapidly, AGW a few decades from now will so massively compound these threats that the our civilisation may go into an inexorable slide. So worst-case scenario; we don't act on AGW anywhere nearly strongly enough, or not at all, perhaps because we are so bound up just coping with the day to day crises. Then AGW gets into high gear mid-century with a few of the 'tipping point' factors coming into play and our societies really start to implode. And in this hugely traumatised world, as many major nations are under huge pressure, someone pushes the Nuclear Launch button. After that, our over-population problems are probably solved. But after perhaps two generations of collapse, how much of our current knowledge and technology will our descendents retain. As a book I read recently on brain neuro-plasticity commented, 'civilisation is only really one generation deep' In a world that is much harsher than anything in the last 10,000 years; with the psychic trauma of the collapse affecting everyone left; with the loss of our most precious and fragile resource, our knowledge base; on a world where all the easily extractable resources have already been extracted; Our descendents may by trying to start a viable hunter-gatherer society in a world that looks like something out of Mad Max. And the people who may see all this happen are alive today. In schools all over the world.
95837. actually thoughtful at 15:23 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Muoncounter - given the failure of the political system (in the US at least) to handle global warming - we can only hope that supply will crater compared to demand. But then people will feel justified in all kind of environmental sins to chase another barrel of oil (Alaska's ANWR being one obvious choice - fraking the entire Bakken field, etc., etc.). Given the failure of our national governments, it is becoming challenging to see this ending well.
95838. adelady at 15:17 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       "The cost of repairs to disasters and warfare contribute to GDP! They are part of the domestic product. " Maybe. But the tax incentives or low-cost loans or direct payments by governments for such major projects take tax revenues away from other worthwhile purposes. Thinking that things will be better because governments will get back 10 or 20 or 30% of their outlays from taxes on wages, profits or goods & services is reassuring - until you start doing it over and over and over again for no net improvement in infrastructure and services. It's worthwhile for genuinely longterm investments. Doing it repeatedly without getting *new*, additional bridges or airports or whatever for that cost because the necessary funds are locked in to replacing, repairing or relocating the existing services is financial suicide. If you've not taken future climate problems into account, where will you find appropriate large parcels of land that should have been set aside for such developments 20 or 30 years earlier. Genuinely longterm infrastructure investments must take future issues like storms, floods and fires into account. That means effects of climate change. Investment will be a lot more valuable if the airport or sewage treatment plant is still above sea level 60+ years from now. And if dams and bridges can withstand storm levels prevailing 80+ years from completion.
95839. Ron Crouch at 15:09 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       If Brown is correct I can envision a barrel of oil rising to $200 or more. That's plain simple economics, a dwindling supply mixed with growing demand. Once alternative energy becomes cheaper than conventional sources there should be a major surge toward investment in alternative energy leading to growth and employment in that sector. So why always apply this short-term economics approach to things which is basically what people like Monckton argue. Long-term economics would tend to indicate that investment today would lead to increased economic benefit in the short-term also while averting some of the increased cost due to future inflation. I don't see investment in alternative energy as any potential threat to any countries economy. It is inevitable that at some point in time that there will simply be a transition period where employment in various sectors will shift to other sectors as demand for new technologies increases and older technologies become more expensive to maintain and operate. So these arguments that moving forward will cause hardship, job losses, and hurt the economy, is simply a flawed argument.
95840. dana1981 at 14:59 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Mozart - I agree that we can't wish our problems away. But a carbon price increases the market for alternative technologies, and potentially creates a revenue stream to fund their R&D (depending on how the government allocates the carbon funds). In short, a carbon price is a proactive step in solving our problems.
95841. mozart at 14:34 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Bern is right conservation is a big part of any energy solution. Simply putting European style petroleum taxes in place in the USA would have a huge effect. Likewise hybrid technology, weight reductions in vehicles etc. And by all means put people in trains, if you can get their acquiesence. The other big opportunity is natural gas....a 30% CO2 reduction with Trade Balance benefits, and a reduction in the world's dangerous dependence on the Middle East. As Chapman points out nuclear is the other practical answer. But this one is on a longer burn(if you'll excuse the term). Sure we have the capability and the long term uranium supply to build a huge nuclear infrastructure. But even though it's now PC to ignore the risks....it didn't used to be, and for good reason. Care has to be taken, and last I looked opinions still counted for something. People don't want reactors in their backyards. Don't look for the big nuclear step before 2030. The other stuff, solar, wind hydropower, biofuels and geothermal are admirable....but small. They can be doubled, trebled....but they wont be a solution, just a contributor. And the effects of the vast electical power generation to make transportation non carbon, are daunting. Imagine the impact on copper, already in tight supply. You can't wish all the problems away.
95842. muoncounter at 14:20 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       #16: "a notable argument to be made for using the current abundant fossil fuel to bootstrap ourselves into the carbon free economy." Here's a report that suggests there may be less time for that than many believe. ... the decline in exports from countries like Saudi Arabia could mean that consumer nations such as the U.S. will be competing for a shrinking pool of available oil. For every three barrels of oil that countries excluding China and India imported in 2005, there will be only two by 2015, Brown estimates. China and India, meanwhile, will consume about a third of global exports by then to fuel the rapid growth of their expanding economies. The combined economic impact of competitive demand on an international scale and declining production will make a 'carbon tax' seem cheap.
95843. Bern at 14:11 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       @John Chapman: You estimate $10 trillion to replace existing coal-fired electricity generation with nuclear. But there are studies out there that show electricity demand can be *halved* or better by implementation of energy efficiency measures (like using more efficient lighting - I replaced 200w of halogen lighting in the kitchen at home with 36w of LEDs, and it's more than enough light for 99% of tasks). The monthly magazine of Engineers Australia used to regularly feature articles about energy efficiency measures applied to industry & commercial buildings. In every case, without exception, the investment was paid off inside five years. Even for the cases where the cost was measured in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Think what that would mean to the bottom line of the average business, if they could, for example, get very low (or even zero) interest finance from the government to fund efficiency measures. My point being that many steps that may be taken to reduce fossil fuel demand, and consequently carbon emissions, are net zero cost, or even net negative cost, when measured over periods as short as 3-5 years. What's the longer term benefit to you, personally, if you managed to cut your power & fuel bills in half? Case study: we currently pay about $1,200 per year for electricity. At the current level, it's a third lower than before we had our solar hot water installed (which cost us ~$600 more than installing a replacement electric hot water system). So I estimate we're saving about $300-$400 *per year* on electricity costs, for an out-of-pocket cost of $600, which should be good for at least 10-15 years. First estimate, then, is that spending $600 now saves us $3,000 over 10 years, for a five-fold return on investment. And that's assuming the cost of electricity doesn't go up, which is wishful thinking in Australia, irrespective of any price on carbon!
95844. actually thoughtful at 14:06 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       I am not sure that switching to a carbon free economy has the cost that people assume/impute. Look economies have to DO something. They can efficiently convert food into fuel (efficient here means lots of people make money - it doesn't mean it is efficient in any scientific sense). So we can wind our economy up and set it to solving global warming - and people will make money doing that. Or we can wind it up to drill/frac/squeeze every bit of fossil fuel out of the earth. The economy cares not one whit. And there is a notable argument to be made for using the current abundant fossil fuel to bootstrap ourselves into the carbon free economy. This gets much, much harder when certain rare metals become much rarer, and energy becomes much, much more expensive.
95845. scaddenp at 13:55 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       Rather than fretting about carbon tax/carbon trading as first off, how about beginning by killing every subsidy on fossil fuel? You would pay more for energy but less for tax. Let some market forces go to work. (Personal political opinion - subsidies have a place in education and health. Nowhere in industry including renewables).
95846. John Chapman at 13:28 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       How much money was thrown at the banks and economy as a remedy for the GFC? To replace all the coal-fired power plants with nuclear ones would require 2,000 of the structures at say $5b each. That's $10 trillion, for a 30% reduction in CO2 emmissions. Not a bad investment I would say! [Please refrain from starting a discussion on the cost of nuclear power plants :)]. To cease burning of forests would reduce another 30%, and replace vehicles with electric ones - OK will also need to double the quantity of nuke plants to charge the vehicles - and voila we have a 90% reduction in emissions. The world has the technology, but short-term economic arguments take precedence over the future well-being of the planet. On the subject of GDP, be careful. The cost of repairs to disasters and warfare contribute to GDP! They are part of the domestic product.
95847. Marcus at 13:03 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       You're absolutely correct MattJ. A far better approach is to use CO2 from power/heat generation to grow algae, then extract the oils from the algae that can be then converted to bio-diesel. The remains can then be gasified & the gas burned for heat/electricity.
95848. muoncounter at 12:58 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       #6: "In the meantime natural gas, which would cut CO2 emissions by 29% versus oil, receives no support" Ah Mozart, do you not know the inner workings of the oil and gas business? 'Subsidies' start with the percentage depletion allowance. Production tax credits helped kick off the booming shale gas play. GWB's Energy Policy Act of 2005 also slipped in clever exemptions to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act for oil and gas production - which helped give us the ability to frac just about anything anywhere. Methane in your drinking water? Too bad. There's even a field in Canada doing a massive CO2 flood (and pilot sequestration project), with reports of CO2 leaking out of damaged casing and flowing to surface.
95849. MattJ at 12:52 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       @Marcus- More importantly, Ethanol is a really poor source of "carbon mitigation". Growing plants to ferment into ethanol is not only a ludicrously inefficient way to convert solar energy into chemical energy, the fermentation releases CO2 into the air, too. I don't have a reference to a reliable carbon budget, but as I recall, many have cast reasonable doubt on the carbon footprint of ethanol use.
95850. MattJ at 12:49 PM on 14 February 2011
       Monckton Myth #11: Carbon Pricing Costs vs. Benefits
       @Mozart- "Food shortages and famine are just a perturbation away. We have to be wise about all this. " Why, yes. They are. But I think you have misunderstood what direction this 'perturbation' will come from. It is already quite reasonable to believe that AGW was a major factor in the rise in the price of wheat that has caused a sharp rise in food prices all over Africa and the Middle East. We just saw how drastic the political consequences can be. We are very lucky that so far, it has turned in to the Arab version of 1848. But we know, for example, that the drought in Russia was typical of AGW, and that caused the price of wheat to rise. We know to expect much more of this in the near coming decades. It will only be a short time before seafood shortages follow, due to our near total neglect of ocean acidification and the die-off of deep sea phytoplankton. Then the political consequences will not be so benign, famine will be widespread. Even if we do raise the price on carbon too steeply, the damage to our food supply system will not be as drastic as that due to the continuing neglect. Besides: it really will not take that long for nuclear, solar and (relatively low carbon) natural gas to replace high carbon sources, since we really have made that much progress in recent years. High carbon prices give us strong incentives to close the gap and make these really affordable and widespread.

Prev  1909  1910  1911  1912  1913  1914  1915  1916  1917  1918  1919  1920  1921  1922  1923  1924  Next