Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 Next
Comments 35951 to 36000:
-
derp at 19:06 PM on 17 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
Those cartoons are cool and scientific indeed. I was just referring to this particular cartoon. It is obviously an ad hominem attack that is politically motivated. Which goes against the comment policy of this website and is the antithesis of science. It would fit well into the cartoon section of the local rag though.
Not my website so do what you like. But judging by the very minimal number of comments on the articles, and the fact that the mod personally replies to various contrarian posters suggests that there is not much engagement with this blog anyway. It would seem that the damage has already been done. Your loss, not mine. All the best.
-
DAK4Blizzard at 15:04 PM on 17 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Tom @22: I see, well at least it's based on something. I'm not a fan of the Bureau's defined Mid-Atlantic, at least not after the 19th century. It's weird to me that the Bureau has the Mid-Atlantic as subregion of the Northeast. But even considering that, I would still place MD and DE in there. Instead, we have the Bureau's definition conflicting a bit with this Wikipeida article's definition of the Mid-Atlantic. Oh well, thanks for the info.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:46 PM on 17 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
DAK4Blizzard @21, it turns out the classification of Maryland and Delaware as southern states is the standard convention as used by the US census bureau, with the regions marked as South Atlantic, East South Central, and West South Central combining to be classified as the Southern United States by the census bureau:
The division goes further back to the Mason-Dixon line which marked the difference between North and South at the north border of Maryland (but which excluded Delaware), and between slave states and non-slave states at the time of the civil war. Although Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware remained with the Union at that time, they were in fact slave states. Missouri (north of the line, but a slave state that joined the union) is not included in the south, so geographical cohesion is also a factor in the division.
-
DAK4Blizzard at 13:14 PM on 17 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
It's alittle odd to me that Maryland and Delaware are categorized in the South Atlantic vs. the Mid-Atlantic. (West Virignia is also a bit questionable.) It probably wouldn't affect the graphs much in general, but I do wonder how the numbers would be impacted if that switch was made.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 11:48 AM on 17 June 2014New Video: Meltwater Pulse 2B
I note that, once again, Jetfuel made assertions based on data that were not sourced. When others look at the existing data, and reference them, they see a very different picture. This has happened repeatedly. Just saying.
Moderator Response:[PS] Good point. I am guessing Jetfuel is accessing disinformation sites without much skepticism, but then correcting disinformation is what this site exists for.
Jetfuel - can you share what source you used?
-
johnthepainter at 11:21 AM on 17 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
In addition to rewarding those persons who choose to use less carbon energy, the proposal of increasing the tax or fee would make it clear that over time continuing to use a lot of carbon fuel would become increasingly expensive (unless fuel companies dropped their prices as consumers used less of their product, which would hurt their bottom line) and would cause people to find alternative energy sources, use it more efficiently, buy more efficient appliances , and insulate buildings better. Investors would shift away from fossil fuel companies and begin to invest in clean energy. This in turn would spur new companies and more money going into developing more efficient clean energy. The new study shows this will work.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:11 AM on 17 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
Just to add another datapoint, this xkcd cartoon
generated an interesting discussion at the statistics Stack Exchange forum and at Andrew Gelman's (a top Bayesian statistician) blog and on Larry Wasserman's (another top statistician) blog. Cartoons have a long history (c.f. e.g. Gilray) of use as a powerful means of communicating ideas. Many adults do like this form of communication, otherwise the forms used by Gilray wouldn't still be in use today.
BTW Tom, the Fermat compression algorithm cartoon is excellent!
-
MA Rodger at 00:54 AM on 17 June 2014New Video: Meltwater Pulse 2B
jetfuel @9.
You do seem to be quoting figures that are badly wrong. The "last data you read" on Greenland ice loss (possibly from Wikipedia) is a decade out of date. As the rate is markedly accelerating (graphed here), the numbers you quote are far far too low for an up-to-date value.
I'm not familiar with any source, past or present, claiming ice loss from Antarctic sheets at 33 cu miles/yr. Antarctic values are proving more difficult to nail down than Greenland's & the latest numbers have revised the figure downwards by a considerable amount (eg Sasgen et al (2013) or Williams et al (2014)) giving average values of 50-60 cu km/yr for the period 2003-13, but noting that the loss is acceleration and so today it would be roughly 100 cu km/yr = 24 cu mile/yr.
I am also not familiar with the annual ice volumes on Lake Superior. Is there any reason why a few tens of sq km of seasonal ice on that lake would register above "look squirrel" given there is 16,000 sq km seasonal melt of Arctic Sea Ice which has zero significance in this discussion?
-
CBDunkerson at 00:31 AM on 17 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
dhugalf wrote: "You're raising costs, but then paying them straight back to consumers."
It seems like your disconnect is that you are thinking that a zero net change for the entire population means zero net change for each individual. It does not.
If a 10% tax were added to the cost of coal based electricity and then all of that tax refunded back to the consumers the net change for all consumers would be 'zero' (though they would lose interest on the money between the time it was paid and refunded). However, an individual who used no coal based electricity would pay 0% of the tax, but still get their full share of the refund.
Under the proposed revenue neutral tax plan, those who do not reduce their emissions would lose money because they are paying more for the tax than they are getting back from the refund... the difference effectively becoming a wealth transfer to the people who do reduce their emissions. That's your economic incentive... the government is taking money away from people with high emissions lifestyles and giving that money to people with low emissions lifestyles. Thus, each individual has an economic incentive to reduce their emissions even though the government isn't making any money and the total population isn't losing any. It is the direction of transfer which creates the incentive.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:36 PM on 16 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
derp @1, I refute your contention that cartoons can be of no interest to scientifically minded adults thusly:
And for mathematically minded adults:
From xkcd
-
Composer99 at 23:17 PM on 16 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
derp:
Editorial cartoons have been a staple of printed newspapers, consumed primarily by adults, since at least the nineteenth century (if not earlier).
I suspect if you review the literature on the topic, you can find equivalent satire or commentary stretching back several centuries, both in illustration or text (e.g. the identity of many of the suffering souls in Dante's Inferno was in part determined by the contemporary politics of the Italian peninsula).
You can take a dim view of Skeptical Science sharing editorial cartoons, as is your wont, but it does not follow that printed satirical humour is objectively juvenile or ridiculous, and it does not follow, beyond your own opinion, that such behaviour objectively "detracts" from the site.
-
derp at 22:16 PM on 16 June 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #24
I mean this in the kindest way. You really have no idea how ridiculous cartoons like this make your website look. Adults don't communicated like this to other adults, much less adults who profess to be scientifically minded. Posting this stuff honestly detracts from your site.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your concern is duly noted.
-
derp at 22:12 PM on 16 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24B
Good point jzk. If the city wasn't there then that heat would be radiating out itself. The houses are simple trapping the heat during the day and the airconditioners are returning it to the environment at night. So it's obvious that the temp will be higher than before the city had air conditioners.
-
Chris G at 15:24 PM on 16 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
@ktonine,
Tom, this is only a generalized rule...
Yes, we know that occasionally people do irrational things, but since it requires energy to produce and transport everything, we are talking about the general case. It does not require than all actors are well informed or rationale.As far as one electric provider goes...What, you think electric companies never trade with other electric companies?
-
Tom Curtis at 13:57 PM on 16 June 2014New Video: Meltwater Pulse 2B
jetfuel @9:
"From the end of April 2012 through the end of April 2013, which corresponds reasonably well to the period between the beginning of the 2012 and 2013 melt seasons, the cumulative ice sheet loss was 570 Gt, over twice the average annual loss rate of 260 Gt y-1 during 2003-2012. The 2012-2013 mass loss is the largest annual loss rate for Greenland in the GRACE record, mostly reflecting the large mass loss during the summer of 2012 (Tedesco et al. 2013b). The mass loss during the 2013 summer melt season is likely to be considerably smaller than during 2012, based on other evidence such as the reduced surface melt extent, surface mass balance and runoff described above. A lower mass loss during summer 2013 can also be inferred from the much smaller difference between the April (blue asterisks) and July 2013 mass values (orange asterisks), particularly relative to each of the three previous years (Fig. 56)."
(Jason Box, my emphasis)
So, you understate last years mass loss by 65%. Your correctly note that it was a record year, but fail to note the average annual loss is 30% greater than the level you claim was record. You try to distract use from the point by pointing to the total mass of ice in Greenland (which has no bearing on the annual increase in sea level from ice melt), but fail to note that the ice melt will accelerate with rising temperatures. Finally you attempt distraction again with an irrelevant comparison to a seasonal fluctuation in floating ice, which therefore (for three reasons) has no bearing on current or future sea level rise.
Should we just assume massive factual errors and irrelevant comments every time you post - or did you set out to excell yourself this time?
-
jetfuel at 12:53 PM on 16 June 2014New Video: Meltwater Pulse 2B
Chriskoz, you state the total Greenland land ice melt is now approaching 300Gt per year. Last Data I read was 47 cu miles per year (~200 Gt) and that 47 was from a cherry picked worst year. Antarctica was losing 33 cu mi per year recently for a total of 80 cu miles for both land areas combined. Greenland has 2.85 million km3 and Antarctica has 7.2 million km3 of land ice. Why isn't 10 km3 called out as a 'look..squirrel". Lake Superior added 50 km3 of new ice this past winter, formed since January, and it was finally all melted on June 12.
Moderator Response:[PS] "look squirrel" is adding a distracting comment as rhetorical device rather than addressing the arguments made to you. I note that you have clearly read my request for acknowledgement on your past comments but have chosen to ignore it. Obviously that is your choice but your behaviour is then more consistent with trolling rather an search for truth.
-
scaddenp at 12:07 PM on 16 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
"There will be winners and losers - and the net economic effect is unclear to even advanced analysis."
Net economic effort of not mitigating emissions on the other hand is well studied and its mostly losers and especially to those with the least responsibility for causing the problem in the first place. People normally hot on freedom and responsibility seem strangely silent taking responsibility for effects on emissions. Lets not have paralysis by analysis.
-
John Hartz at 10:41 AM on 16 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
PS: I did not intend my question to MThompson to be snarky. I find his prose to be very difficult to understand. It would be extremely helpful if he could distill his comments into a few succinct points.
Moderator Response:[PS] okay, maybe heavy handed but I thought the thread going downhill with what sounded like snark to me in MThompson's responses too. I was intervening before any policy violations were made by anyone.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:15 AM on 16 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
ktonine @13, first, market mechanisms have clearly defined conditions under which they have limitted applicability or are likely to fail. Mortgage rates, for example, are prone to bubbles because they are lent against the assets of the borrower, including (especially) the value of the house being purchased. That value is itself, however, a function of the willingness of investors (normally banks) to extend credit, so that to a certain extent housing loans are lent against the willingness of banks to grant housing loans. This is a potential problem for any commodity with a futures market, and hence potentially for cap and trade schemes, and the reason why carbon credits unders such schemes should have a strict, and short time limit for their use (certainly less than 18 months, and ideally no longer than 3 months). It is definitely not a problem for carbon taxes, however.
There is more of a problem for potential near monopoly providers. I say near monopoly in that there are always alternative medicines (in one of your examples), means of obtaining power and water, or of disposing of garbage. You can, for instance, build a tank and truck in water, generate your own electricity, and dispose of your own rubbish (or regularly hire a skip).
These are expensive, or time consuming options in most cases, the consequence of which may be a low price elasticity of demand for certain products, including for near monopoly supply of essentials. Even then you can limit your payment of a related carbon tax by (in the case of electricity):
1) Using efficient appliances and lighting sources;
2) Lowering use of electricity by turning of unused lights, and appliances;
3) Reduce heating and cooling bills by insulating, and altering clothing states more in the house in response to changes in season.
That list is not exhaustive. There are similar means to reduce water consumption, and even waste generation.
The result is that a carbon price provides a consumer incentives to alter demand even in the face of monopoly supply (in addition to providing an incentive to the supplier to improve the carbon efficiency of suppply as discussed by scaddenp).
Further, while there are circumstances that mute the price signal of a carbon price, they are not universal. Consequently a carbon price still reduces carbon generation across the economy if not in particular sectors. (It will in all specific sectors as well, though not as much in some as in others. The ability to effectively reduce the carbon price where carbon efficiency is price inelastic, and increase it were it is price elastic is one of the key advantages of cap and trade over carbon taxes.)
Finally, some of the areas were carbon prices may be price inelastic (monopolly supply of electricity) can be made price elastic by suitable change of regulation. If the need to make a carbon tax more efficient provides an incentive for that change, that is an additional benefit from the carbon tax.
-
Andy Skuce at 09:14 AM on 16 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Opposition to revenue-neutral carbon taxes seems to divide into two main rather contradictory arguments.
1) Demand for energy is inelastic and price increases won't change consumption or emissions.
2) A carbon tax will distort spending patterns so much that there will be economic disaster.
Of course there are levels of carbon tax that would be too low to make a significant difference and levels so high that, if introduced too quickly, would disrupt the economy unduly.
As Dana noted, what the experience of British Columbia shows is that a broad $30/tonne tax on combustion emissions can be introduced without economic disruption and can reduce emissions. The experience of BC also shows that introducing such a tax can be revenue-neutral and politically popular.
Of course, there are limits to how high such a tax can go without disrupting trade with neighbours that do not have such a tax. BC is also fortunate in having big hydroelectricity resources, which at least shielded consumers form higher utility bills as a result of the cabon tax.
-
scaddenp at 08:10 AM on 16 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
"I have one only electricty provider"
I don't know where you live, but that however is not the case in many other places. Furthermore, if your electricity provider had a choice between a cheap or expensive generator, then chances are they buy cheap.
Everything you buy has embedded energy in it. A factory will choose the low cost provider and again, if carbon pricing mechanisms mean that non-carbon sources are cheaper, then that is what they will buy. If they dont, then they risk being uncut by a competitor that does use cheaper energy. If you put carbon-tax on imported goods unless there is cast-iron proof they were manufactured from non-carbon energy sources, then you put pressure on external manufacturers to find alternative energy. Personally I think it is a powerful way to encourage alternative energy investment. Of course, even better is simply a worldwide ban on new FF power plants. Let the market work to find the next best solution - means you have 30-40 years to replace FF.
-
shastatodd at 05:38 AM on 16 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24B
also, ac units are not 100% efficient... so there is a net heat gain.
-
ktonine at 04:01 AM on 16 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Tom C writes: "If you think otherwise, by all means submit your proof that price signals do not effect demand to a journal of economics. Your noble prize awaits.
Tom, this is only a generalized rule - not an absolute. It would require that all actors are rationale and have perfect information - which of course never happens in the real world. A brief look at mortgage rates over the last 10 years shows how tenuous the price/demand linkage can be.
This is because there are numerous other confounding factors; necessity, for instance. If the price of your heart medicine goes up it's more likely you will cut consumption of other products and *still* buy your medicine.
Often we do not have a choice in purchasing alternatives vis a vis carbon intensity. I have one only electricty provider, water provider, and garbage pickup provider. Anyone that wants these services is essentially a captive consumer.
Any accurate assessment of the effects would have to be on a sector by sector, industry by industry, product by product basis. There will be winners and losers - and the net economic effect is unclear to even advanced analysis.
-
jzk at 02:00 AM on 16 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24B
It is true that air conditioning creates some net heat. But mostly, it is just moving it from inside the house/office to outside. The air conditioning is moving heat out, and the heat is working itself back in through the walls etc. How could moving heat around in this manner raise the temperature of a city 1C?
Moderator Response:[JH] Have your read the article? BTW, the 1C increase is specific to night-time temperature.
-
John Hartz at 01:28 AM on 16 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
MThompson@13:
Darned if I understand what you are saying. Is English not your native language?
Moderator Response:[PS] How about toning down a little bit everyone? Snark doesnt lead to constructive debate.
-
PluviAL at 00:35 AM on 16 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
The more general reason that economic development will increase is that whenever a society or an individual sets an objective to achieve, it takes effort. In the case of a whole society, "effort" means more economic activity; we are doing stuff. Even destructive activity like war generates economic growth, at the cost of energy and the environmental impacts that has. However, if the "effort" generates good, like the space program, then all the effort generates good as well as economic growth. In this case, since the energy factor creates more efficient energy sources, and energy economizing, it is like the space program; good all around. Imagine if Pluvinergy was developed, it creats a whole new era. The benefit and ecomomic growth is litteraly unimaginable.
Nice summary of the complex mechanics though, it clears the head.
-
MA Rodger at 23:30 PM on 15 June 2014Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
I do wonder if the attempt by jetfuel@4 to challenge the assertion made in this post (that Antarctic Sea Ice is growing at a much slower rate that Arctic Sea Ice is shrinking) should be batted away innto the long grass simply because of the incompetence of jetfuel to state his case.
It is true that over the satellite record (1979 - to date), the decline in Arctic Sea Ice Area & Extent is roughly three times larger than the increase in Antarctic Se Ice Area & Extent. It is also true that both the Arctic decline and the Antarctic increase - both these trends have shown signs of acceleration over recent years, yet generally the three-to-one ratio remains. And it is true that the acceleration in trends is accompanied by greater variability but this has not resulted in net global Sea Ice area & extent anomalies reaching any unprecedented values* when examined as daily, monthly or quarterly averages, *unprecedented taken as values over the last decade, there being variability evident with such periodicity.
However, recent Net Global Sea Ice area & extent do start to show unprecedented values* when Annual Averages are examined. This results mainly from the Antarctic anomaly showing a rising trend over the last two years. While this remains presently a short-term phenomenon, the mechanisms behind the growth of Antarctic Sea Ice area & extent are known to be the product of Antarctic regions with increasing sea ice cover and other Antarctic regions with decreasing sea ice cover. The net Antarctic anomaly is the result of two far larger values that presently come close to cancelling each other out. Such a cancellation cannot be relied on. One of the mechanisms (for increase or decrease) could easily come to dominate the anomaly in future decades, as may have been the case prior to the satellite era. Indeed, Fan et al (2014) argue quite convincingly that the start of the satellite data (1979) likely coincides with a shift from significant Antarctic summer (DJF) ice loss over the period 1950-78.
Thus, while the comments by jetfuel are based on cherry-picking nonsense, and while the Net Global Sea Ice area & extent has been in decline over the satellite era (1979 - to date), predicting a continuation of that decline is potentially foolhardy as future trends, in particular Antarctic Sea Ice cover, remain uncertain. -
MThompson at 22:03 PM on 15 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
Mr. Hartz , thank you for your kind offer to familiarize myself with an acceptable definition of climate, and your challenge to document my assertions in your comment numbered 12. I now understand the definition of the word “climate” to be a statistical mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to millions of years. It is also reasonable to choose a 30 year time frame, as attributed to AR4, to be a classical reference frame as a basis for studying the time dependence of these statistics.
In light of this please permit me to rephrase your challenge, for I did not define climate as chaos, or say that climates were chaotic in their nature. My assertion is that climates are defined by chaotic processes that can be characterized by the statistics of temperature, humidity, wind, etc. Just one of the chaotic processes that define climates (again, making no assault on the word) is a concept known as weather. It is most certainly understood by those of scientific acumen that weather is a chaotic process, so perhaps your invitation to provide references is for our readers that have very little such expertise. There are many references for the general reader, but here I provide a somewhat incestuous one:To sum up, the weather is chaotic because it can run free, climate is on a leash.
I return to Mr. Tamblyn’s seductive analogy in comment numbered 11. In this he bounds the system with swimming pool walls, gravity and atmosphere. The playful splashing within the pool is the source of waves, and the assumed randomness creates apparent disorder in the surface of the water. The average amount of water in the pool is one of many statistics that quantify this system, and thus he compares to climate. We all know that analogies generally only have finite integrity, and unfortunately there is a key element this one lacks: nonlinear feedbacks. We could try to patch it up by saying that the sound of happy children splashing draws more into the pool, then vagaries of the perception of happy sounds and the local density of children provide feedback that drives the disorder. Even so, the key metric, the average quantity of water in the pool, is not modulated. We could continue with refinements, but ultimately we are well beyond climate in this commentary thread, but rather discuss climate change.
Now Mr. Hartz, I believe the component of my assertion that piqued you is that returning the globe to a specific temperature cannot guarantee a specific climate. Is this a contentious point for climate scientists? I assume you understand that by using the term “global temperature” no one learned in the subject would assume that I meant that “global climate” is an issue here. While there is most certainly a statistical basis to describe the climate of our globe, it is far too coarse a measure to be immediately relevant. The changes in “classical” climate that are essential as of late cannot recovered by simply retuning to some past planetary mean temperature. I believe this assertion would be consensus of climate experts, but I hope to be corrected forthwith. -
chriskoz at 19:09 PM on 15 June 2014New Video: Meltwater Pulse 2B
Tom@7,
A agree with both yourself and [PS]. The comment by '4hulkzx10r' belongs to "Deleted Comments".
<snip>
If you want to show that comment as the exemplary, then better solution would be to allow access to Deleted Comments for general users. Currently only admins who delete the comments can see Deleted Comments section. I see a benefit why general public could see it (in read only mode of course): they would better appreciate the good work admins are doing to keep this site nice and clean.
Back to the topic of "unstopable AIS". It's the question of both feasibility & timeframe. The timeframe is probably not just 200y (as mentioned in 4:55, I don't know where greenman took it from) but a bit more. I think I've seen estimates from 200 to 900y. An Eric Rignon said on NASA website:
This sector will be a major contributor to sea level rise in the decades and centuries to come," Rignot said. "A conservative estimate is it could take several centuries for all of the ice to flow into the sea."
Now about feaibility. What would it take to "stop it"? The obvious answer is: reverse the TOA energy imbalance (from 0.7Wm-2 now to say -0.5Wm-2) and wait long enough (50, 100, 200 years?) for ocean to cool enough so that the ice sheet hysteresis response go back towards ice formation. Of course easier said than done: probably physically impossible within next couple centuries with all that persitent CO2, that's why Eric concludes it "unstoppable". The ocean inertia and IS response hysteresis are "blessing in disguise" because they are slowing the surface warming but it turns out very deceitful, especially to the most vulnerable comunities (i.e. the low lying island nations in this case).
Moderator Response:[PS] Let's not get into name-calling. Too much of that already.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:16 PM on 15 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
dhugalf @9, when tomatoes get more expensive, I buy less tomatoes. It does not matter whether the tomatoes have become more expensive because of drought, flood, or an increased price on carbon. The effect is the same. In contrast, If I get an increase in income, I tend to buy more of everything. My increased purchases do not focus exclusively on those things which have increased most in price. The net effect of both an increase in the price of goods based on the carbon emissions from manufacture and transport of the goods coupled with an increase of income is that I buy less of the carbon intensive goods (though not as much less as if I had no increase in income), but more of the non-carbon intensive goods. Because I am not alone in this, the net effect will be that business investment will shift away from producing carbon intensive goods toward non-carbon intensive goods (which further increases the price of carbon intensive goods, and decreases that of non-carbon intensive goods). This effect multiplied across the 20 million people in Australia, or the 200 million in the US adds up to very a large effect.
If you think otherwise, by all means submit your proof that price signals do not effect demand to a journal of economics. Your noble prize awaits.
-
Chris G at 13:10 PM on 15 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
@dhugalf,
Our point is that consumers are very much affected by what industry does, in terms of costs of goods. Let's try again, goods which are produced with energy resulting is less CO2 production cost less to the consumer than goods produced with more. We do not expect consumers to change, but rather to continue to buy equivalent goods which cost less.
This is not a tax on energy; it is a tax on CO2 production. Burning fossil fuels produces CO2. Fossil fuel is taxed at the mine or port. Fossil fuel is more expensive; other forms of energy production are not more expensive.
The dividend aspect does two things: It prevents the growth of government through this system, and it protects the poor from rising costs.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:06 PM on 15 June 2014New Video: Meltwater Pulse 2B
Though it violates at least two conditions of posting from the comments policy (off topic, no ad hominens, and probably no sloganeering), it would be nice if 4hulkzx10r's comment @7 were not deleted by the moderators. It is a prime example of the idiocy and the conspiratorial nature of many denier posts. In this case the amount of advertising at SkS can be seen in the lefthand side bar, consisting of notices of four books of which John Cook is the author, one of which can be downloaded for free. This contrasts, for example, with WUWT, which has adds for heartland, for Watts' comercial enterprise, for three books of which Watts is not the author, for two types of home meteorological equipment, and for WUWT merchandising in the side bar, plus a purely commercial video add at the head of the blog roll. Prima facie, Watts does generate a commercial return from his blog, while John Cook certainly does not - but we still get lamebrain deniers accusing Cook of being in it for the money, while ignoring the clear commercial interest from denial for many of the more noted deniers.
Moderator Response:[PS] Nope. I dont think the comment contributes in any way to the debate. 4hulkzx10r either hasnt bothered to read the comments policy or doesnt care - and as you point out, certainly has nothing useful to contribute to the discussion based on that post.
-
dhugalf at 12:49 PM on 15 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
My point is: Consumers are utterly unaffected by what the industry does, so why would they change any purchasing decision at all?
You are assuming consumers will change without any reason to do so (apart from philosophy). There will be no economic incentive for consumers to change anything - in fact you are rewarding them for staying on fossil fuels.
You're raising costs, but then paying them straight back to consumers.
You may as well do nothing at all, it will have the same result.
There is a missing link in this logic chain somewhere.
You're not collectng revenue to use for renewable energy, it's just cycling back to consumers....You're not making fossil fuel more expensive, you're giving consumers money to pay for the increase.
Why bother? -
rockytom at 04:03 AM on 15 June 2014New Video: Meltwater Pulse 2B
Humans have been on a path of destroying this planet since the first tree was cut down and fire was used to burn wooded areas to drive out creatures to be captured for food. It is not surprising that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is being destroyed by humans spewing forth greenhouse gases and causing the planet to warm. Greenland is also past the 'tipping point' and glaciers are disappearing from the land. Humans that depend on glacial meltwater for sustenance and that live near coasts will be displaced and will have to move elsewhere. And denialists call us "alarmists." Personally, I am alarmed, but more than that, I am furious at politicians and the people who elect them who deny that the planet is in serious trouble.
-
Tom Curtis at 01:05 AM on 15 June 2014There's no empirical evidence
Souichi Tsujimoto @215, Schmidt et al (2010) showed that with CO2 concentrations at 339 ppmv (1980 levels), CO2 contributes 20% of the 155 W/m^2 total greenhouse effect, or 31 W/m^2. The increase in CO2 forcing from preindustrial to 1980 levels is 1 W/m^2, resulting in a net increase in total CO2 forcing from 30 to 31 W/m^2 over that period. The further increase to the current date is another 0.9 W/m^2, meaning the total increase from the preindustrial to the current date is from 30 to 31.9 W/m^2. This small increase in forcing as a result of a large increase in CO2 concentration is a result of the fact that you need to double CO2 concentration to obtain a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing. As a result of that, we know that the increase in temperature is in the right ball park to have been caused by the increase in CO2 levels.
Of course, there are further complications. The expected increase in temperature at equilibrium from an increase in CO2 from 280 to 400 ppmv (pre-industrial to current) is 1.55 C. That has not occurred as yet primarilly because the ocean acts as a thermal fly wheel, slowing the changes in temperature due to changes in forcing. Of course, that expected increase includes feedbacks, which are partly uncertain, which is another complication. But the largest cause of the apparent disparity is a failure to allow for the fact that CO2 forcing increases by a constant amount for each doubling of CO2.
-
Charliec65 at 00:19 AM on 15 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Nice article. On the theoretical side it does look possible to make an argument for a move to renewables, and lower carbon. No matter what is found in interviews, conservatives do not want more taxes and income re-distribution. Public opinion on the matter is very liable. Changing the underlying socio-political underpinnings of society, energy sources and infrastructure is hard and expensive. The driver is the absolute necessity of doing it. Clearly, it is better to have a happy outcome rather than a dismal one. We are in a pickle with respect to human population, resource use, and planetary governance.
-
Souichi Tsujimoto at 00:08 AM on 15 June 2014There's no empirical evidence
The Earth's tempurature is 33 degree lower than if no atomosphere and all evidence suggested that CO2 the primary element to create green house blanket. Arround the time of industrial revolution, avarage tempurature is less than 1 degree lower than now. Also the amount of CO2 was 280 ppm and it is almost 400 ppm now. One thing I struggle to understand is why temprature raised only less than 1 degree since industrial revolution. If the green house blanket has warmed the Earth by 33 degree in 280 ppm, would 120 ppm increases of CO2 attribute larger temprature variation ? If not what is factors to supress a large margine of warming ?
-
John Hartz at 22:40 PM on 14 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
As documented in a recent Time magazine article*, there is a growing green energy revolution already underway in the U.S. in the absence of either a ntional "cap and trade" system, or a national carbon tax. The belief that the imposition of either option will not accelerate what's already happening in the energy marketplace is a tad disingenuous in my opinion.
*The Green Revolution Is Here by Michael Grunwald, TIME, June 5, 2014
-
John Hartz at 22:15 PM on 14 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
MThompson: You state:
Climates are defined by an ensemble of chaotic processes. Temperature is simply a measure of one aspect of these processes. Chaos, as the name implies, is not controllable.
First, please document the sources that you have used to arrive at your assertions.
Second, please review the SkS Glossry for the definitions of "climate" and "temperature." The definitions contained in the SkS Glossary are taken directly from the IPCC and are the commonly accepted defitions used by climate scientists throughout the world.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 18:52 PM on 14 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
MThompson
" Climates are defined by an ensemble of chaotic processes".
There are some important insights around this that limit the extent of the 'chaos'.
Let me use an analogy.
I have a swimming pool in my garden. The average water level of the pool is set by how much water is in the pool. From time to time my family like to use the pool. Various people get in and out and the displacement of their bodies varies the water level somewhat. And they like splashing around making lots of waves.
If I examine the water level in my pool it is extremely chaotic. But it is a bounded chaos. A wave that is higher here can only occur because a trough there is lower. The average of this chaos is actually tightly constrained by how much water is in the pool.
The seeming chaos is actually a small amount of variation around a baseline that is extremely non-chaotic.
That baseline (how much water is in the pool) is Climate. The bounded chaos (the waves on the top) is Weather.
-
Steve Bloom at 17:35 PM on 14 June 2014Ice picks: Five pieces of ice news revealing earth’s ice cover is in serious decline
I believe the main significance of the geothermal heat paper is that there will be a bit more water under the glaciers in the warmer areas. That could act to reduce friction and thus increase flow. The last sentence of the papers says just that:
"Our results further suggest that the subglacial water system of Thwaites Glacier may be responding to heterogeneous and temporally variable basal melting driven by the evolution of rift-associated volcanism and support the hypothesis that both heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the WAIS."
-
dana1981 at 15:29 PM on 14 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Trevor - same comment as me @5. I don't follow what you're saying.
-
dana1981 at 15:28 PM on 14 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
dhugalf @1 - I don't follow your argument. As Chris G notes, a carbon tax will rise fossil fuel energy costs. Hence consumers will shift their purchasing decisions toward low-carbon alternatives. Those who fund and invest in energy projects won't put their money into technologies that are assured of becoming more expensive every year.
-
Chris G at 13:45 PM on 14 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Trevor, this article does move past the minutia of the science. Rest assured there will be resistance to any plan put forth by anyone.
There are three broad alternatives for mitigation: regulations, cap and trade, and carbon tax. Regulation and cap&trade place limits on production and would complicated to administer, and lead to energy price spikes during high energy demand years, and limited incentive to reduce CO2 production on low demand years. In contrast, a gradually increasing, revenue-neutral tax&rebate plan applies a constant and predictable pressure on the market.
OK, what's your plan?
-
Chris G at 13:38 PM on 14 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Dhugalf@1,
The cost of energy feeds into everything. A tax on CO2 emissions raises the cost of getting energy from fossil fuels relative to getting energy from other sources.
When electric companies need to increase or replace infrastructure, and they can predict a rising cost of fossil fuel use, why would that not affect their decision about what to build?
When consumers are buying goods, the goods produced with less fossil fuel will be cheaper than those produced with less. Why would people not choose to buy the less expensive goods?
Without the dividend, the government would get to choose which renewables to subsidize. Representatives from regions which have uranium will propose nuclear, those from windy regions will propose wind, and those from deserts will propose solar. Do you really trust politicians to choose the most cost effective combination?
-
Trevor_S at 11:26 AM on 14 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
I see mentioned on occasion that the site is about the Science of AGW/ACC or whatever moniker you wish to use and yet from time to time an economic piece comes up in dealing with mitigation.
I completly disagree with the aproach of a CO2e emissions tax being anything but smoke and mirrors, ultimately futile and bad policy to persue (it doesn't even begin to consider embeded emissions fo example). Does anyone think the newly announced US reductions (tiny as they are) will still be in place if a GOP candidate becomes the POTUS ? I refer you to the Australian federal election outcome last year for some idea of what will happen if you don't drag the people along first. Just not sure if this site is the appropriate place for me to engage in those discussions if the constraints mentioned in the first paragraph are in place ?
It would be good to move the debate past bickering over the miutae of the science and into discussing mitigation (or not)
Moderator Response:[PS] Your point is made but runs close to edge of politics. Please note our comments policy and make sure you comply
-
dhugalf at 10:36 AM on 14 June 2014In charts: how a revenue neutral carbon tax cuts emissions, creates jobs, grows the economy
Okay, but how does this put pressure on anyone to change?
Seems like zero gain for a bunch of effort.
The point of a carbon price is to push consumer demand for change by increasing prices faster than resource scarcity does... This fails to deliver that.
The side benefit is to use revenue to encourage renewable energy adoption.... This fails to deliver that.
So why bother?
-
grindupBaker at 10:21 AM on 14 June 2014Scientists in focus – Lyman and Johnson explore the rapidly warming oceans
@Austrartsua #1 If I take 0.00016 as a rough estimate of average ocean thermal expansion coefficient weighted by more warming in upper half, then I compute 0.111 mm SLR per Zettajoule, so 1.52 mm/yr 2000-2012 then 2.82 mm SLR for 2013. However, Dr. Trenberth mentions that ice melt gives ~50x as much SLR bang for the heating buck as thermal expansion. I compute ice melt would yield 9.18 mm SLR per Zettajoule, which is 83x my thermal expansion estimate. Of course, the heat must reach the ice to accomplish this. Peter Sinclair mentioned 624 Gt/yr global ice melt now in some video (I had previously thought it was 300-400) which would be 1.72 mm SLR. My point is that ice melt is now approximately half of the SLR signal and will increase to an overwhelming proportion over the next several decades and centuries so attempting to measure OHC increase by SLR increase will become increasingly problematic and unneccessary in my opinion, it's better just to stay with the actual measurements, especially if the people who control the money eventually start dumping lots more CTDs in the oceans.
-
MThompson at 21:24 PM on 13 June 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #24A
In continuation of the insightful comments 2, 4,5, 5 and 7, If we can warm the globe by accident then we can most certainly cool it on purpose. The fundamental question is: “Should we?” There have been a number of proposals made over the years to reduce global warming by reducing the sunlight that arrives at the surface of the planet. The real problem is that even if we can all agree on and return to the “correct” global temperature that is no guarantee that we will achieve a specific climate. Climates are defined by an ensemble of chaotic processes. Temperature is simply a measure of one aspect of these processes. Chaos, as the name implies, is not controllable.
As for cooling the sea enough to halt collapse of the west Antarctic ice sheet, that concept is not well thought-out. The seawater beneath the ice shelf is hot, perhaps a few degrees centigrade. Any ice re-formed beneath that is by congelation, where heat is lost through the overbearing ice to the atmosphere above. Transport of heat through a thick layer of insulating ice is a slow process, and reducing the temperature of the ocean even slower. Furthermore, active volcanoes recently discovered in the Thwaites glacier basin are significant sources of heat that will resist any amount of ocean cooling. The only practical approach to save the ice sheet is to increase snowfall from above and force the water back out to sea. Artificial snow making on a continental scale will require a huge amount of energy. What would we choose: nuclear or wind?P.S. Thanks to commenters 7 and 8 for references. I willendeavor to educate myself, time permitting.
-
MA Rodger at 19:54 PM on 13 June 2014Arctic sea ice loss is matched by Antarctic sea ice gain
Response @4&5.
The cherry-picked number,Δ(Arctic Sea Ice Volume maximum 2007 & 2014), described as "a very small amount, far less than 1000 cubic km (PIOMAS)" is 750 km3, which over a seven year period and in the units used in the graph @5 represents a trend of -1.07 (1000 km3/Decade). It isn't a very ripe cherry.
The comparison presented @4, that of Arctic Sea Ice loss being allegedly not "on the order of 'three times as much as' in recent data," it is a comparison with Antarctic Sea Ice gain. Antarctic Sea Ice Volumes are not as well understood as their northern equivalents, but Holland et al (2014) suggest an Antarctic Sea Ice Volume trend of +0.3 (1000 km3/Decade) for 1992-2010. Ironically, that is about a third the size of the cherry-picked measure of ice loss in the Arctic.
Prev 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 Next
