[pbleighton]

"1) Our goal is not too save money, therefore saving energy is not our goal."

Why assume this?

"2) Let's assume our goal is to maximize NPV ( net present value) on an absolute basis."

This can hardly be our only goal.

"3) Let's assume killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis."

Well, OK

"4) Let's assume tax policy by definition cannot make energy as cheap and plentiful as possible. It may help or hurt."

Why assume this?

"4) Let's assume tax policy cannot by definition maximize NPV. It may help or hurt."

Why assume this?

"5) Let's assume making energy as cheap and plentiful as possible will maximize NPV."

In the very short run, yes, but in the long run it depends on the type of energy consumed.

You have completely ignored the environmental consequences of different types and levels of energy consumption, and the associated economic (including health) and social costs.

Peter

[mike777]

"You have completely ignored the environmental consequences of different types and levels of energy consumption, and the associated economic (including health) and social costs."

Well not quite..I am assuming that killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis. Killing off or making deadly sick in any sense of the term.

You do not say this explicitly but my point is you assume taxation is the most or almost most important issue. I see taxation as the most evil issue. This may define conservaties and liberals in the USA.....Lord knows the definition can be confusing .

[luke warm]

Quote

This is apparently a very difficult concept to grasp for those without any scientific understanding, or those whose understanding is overwhelmed by their ideological agendas.

more mere assertions... i find this to be hilarious in its simplicity... i'll post 2 of the quotes above, one more time, to show just which side has the agenda here... i've yet to find (although there might be some) any quotes showing an agenda from the other side

Quote

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

this seems agenda-driven to me... be effective, it says, even at the cost of honesty... that's just another way of saying, lie if you have to

Quote

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
recent quote from the Calgary Herald

go christine, go... even if the science is phony, who the hell cares? at least your *agenda* can be furthered... using 'agenda' as a bludgeon against those who dare argue against a position is incredibly disingeniuos, especially when the other side so succintly spells out theirs

Quote

Vulcanos and biological activity have been arround all the time and the system could handle them.

yes, the system can supposedly handle the 99.90925% not attributed to man.. it's that pesky .01075% that's causing all the trouble

[pbleighton]

""You have completely ignored the environmental consequences of different types and levels of energy consumption, and the associated economic (including health) and social costs."

Well not quite..I am assuming that killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis. Killing off or making deadly sick in any sense of the term."

That's not the same thing, and I think you know it. You do not acknowledge environmental costs.

"You do not say this explicitly but my point is you assume taxation is the most or almost most important issue. I see taxation as the most evil issue."

No, it is not the most important issue. It is the most effective remedy for moving the economy away from a carbon based energy supply. The effectiveness of excise taxes is a well-known economic fact (though I'm sure Fox News could find someone to dispute this). See, for example, what the cigarette industry says about the effect of higher cigarette taxes on consumption. It is not the only thing which needs to be done by any means, but it makes the other things (development of non-carbon energy sources and conservation) far easier. It allows them to be done with a steady, persistent basis, with far less explicit action needed in the way of laws, regulations, and subsidies than would otherwise be the case. Drive a Hummer if you like - I would never want to stop you. I just want to make people, on average and over time, more likely to conserve, and to give a big impetus to alternative energy sources.

There are three reasons a carbon tax makes sense:
1) Global warming. In spite of all the anti-warming hoopla, the large scientific institutes and teams have lined up on the side of human behavior most likely being a substantial part of the established fact of global warming. The other side is reduced to quoting a few scientist who disagree - the 95%-5% split hotshot alluded to - with the inevitable ad hominem attacks on the scientists who are part of teh consensus. This is frequently hilarious.
2) Well-established environmental costs/health effects of carbon fuels apart from global warming (see acid rain and lung damage).
3) If we don't do something about oil consumption, we are headed for huge economic disruption. We are burning it twice as fast as we are discovering it, and third world consumption is growing rapidly. We are headed rapidly towards an oil cliff. We won't burn all of the oil, but it will become prohibitively expensive. If we have not as a species moved substantially away from oil when this happens, we will get the worldwide depression we deserve.

On another note, as a liberal, there is a good reason for me to dislike a big carbon tax - it is regressive. It would need to be offset by something like a big cut in the FICA tax.

Peter

[mike777]

"No, it is not the most important issue. It is the most effective remedy "

hmm lets see you say not the most important issue but the most effective remedy..good grief talk about splitting tiny words.





"That's not the same thing, and I think you know it. You do not acknowledge environmental costs."

Good grief, I did just the opposite. I did acknowledge those costs. We have a failure to communicate here.

Your entire response shows a failure of communication. If we cannot communicate I give up.

[pbleighton]

"hmm lets see you say not the most important issue but the most effective remedy..good grief talk about splitting tiny words."

Issue: environmental costs.
Remedy: A variety, the taxes the most effective.

Taxes are important only because of the problem (issue). I don't see why this is difficult to grasp.

"Good grief, I did just the opposite. I did acknowledge those costs."

Where? "Let's assume killing off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis."?

Good grief.

Peter

[luke warm]

mike777, on Jun 24 2006, 08:58 PM, said:

Your entire response shows a failure of communication. If we cannot communicate I give up.

yeah, that old failure to communicate thing is a bitch... even so, it bothers me when certain remarks go either unnoticed or are not critiqued, such as "... with the inevitable ad hominem attacks on the scientists who are part of teh consensus"... what attacks? ... maybe i simply missed those inevitable ad hominem attacks, but i promise i checked...

and this one, "I just want to make people, on average and over time, more likely to conserve..." sorta proves my earlier point... "i just want to MAKE..." get it? i know what you need, by God... and even though i'm the only one to actually show *quotes* from those with agendas, we get the amazing "...or those whose understanding is overwhelmed by their ideological agendas."

just who has the ideological agenda, i wonder? i guess if you say a thing often enough, it makes it true

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 25 2006, 03:21 AM, said:

yes, the system can supposedly handle the 99.90925% not attributed to man.. it's that pesky .01075% that's causing all the trouble

This is the second time that I have seen your .01075% statistic...

Couple quick points. From what I can tell, you are deriving your figure from the following numbers

>Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from
>all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately
>90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another
>90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
>(or, for you mathmaticians, about .01075%)

Just for the record....

When you divide 6/186, the number that you end up with is .032258....
So, you're only off by a factor of 300 or so

[luke warm]

oops... i apologize for the error, and thanks for pointing it out

[hotShot]

Not to mention that 0.032258..... means 3.2258%.

[luke warm]

hotShot, on Jun 25 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

Not to mention that 0.032258..... means 3.2258%.

but i did mention it... richard said, "When you divide 6/186, the number that you end up with is .032258....So, you're only off by a factor of 300 or so" and i said, "oops... i apologize for the error, and thanks for pointing it out"

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jun 25 2006, 05:13 AM, said:

and this one, "I just want to make people, on average and over time, more likely to conserve..." sorta proves my earlier point... "i just want to MAKE..." get it? i know what you need, by God... and even though i'm the only one to actually show *quotes* from those with agendas, we get the amazing "...or those whose understanding is overwhelmed by their ideological agendas."

just who has the ideological agenda, i wonder? i guess if you say a thing often enough, it makes it true

Jimmy, if you want I can produce an equal number of assine comments coming from the global warming skeptics. I haven't bothered to do so because it doesn't advance the debate. We all know that there are a lot of idiots in the world. Guilt by association really doesn't demonstrate anything...

[Gerben42]

Quote

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

This is about the most useless fact you can imagine. First of all, we don't live in former geologic times and we probably couldn't. Secondly anyone with knowledge about atmospheres knows that the trace elements are the deciding factor, not the 99% bulk N2 and O2.

Quote

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless.

So is carbonmonoxide but it kills you.

Quote

Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product.

Correct but irrelevant for the discussion.

Quote

Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

That's okay for the plant growers working with greenhouses but completely irrelevant information. The problem is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - it keeps the planet warm. Sure, the plants won't care - they will grow better on a hotter, rainier planet.

Quote

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

Again nice information. If the planet used to be in equilibrium and then the CO2 production is increased there is a SURPLUS of CO2. On the other hand cutting down rain forests and overusing plains reduces the CO2 consumption, causing a larger surplus. 3% does not sound like much but it's additive, not relative. Think of it like a bank account. If you make $1000 a month and your costs are $1000 a month, you have a neutral situation on your bank account. However if you now make $1030 a month, you will pile up $30 a month. This is what is happening with the CO2.

Quote

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate

This sounds like a state saying: Even if we cut costs we are only going to be able to pay back a tiny amount of our national debt so we will just continue piling it up and leave it to the next generation.

[hrothgar]

In an earlier post in this same thread I suggested that people should "put their money where their mouth is". From my perspective, I think that lot of the climate skeptics out there are paid schills of individuals and companies with a strong vested interest in unconstrained carbon emissions. I think that a lot of "controversy" in this area has deliberately manufactured. I also suggested that it would be possible to create a market in which individuals (and even companies) could bet on different elements of the global warming hypothesis.

I recently discovered that there are already a couple markets out there focusing on just these issues. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange recently created a series of derivates linked to the weather. The so-called Foresight exchange is a more interesting example. This market allows individuals to place bets on a variety of different possible outcomes. The following PDF file provides a simple introduction to a market based on temperature indexes. http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5...n/marketing.pdf

The following article at Real Climate also contains some useful information
http://www.realclima...index.php?p=161

[DrTodd13]

I would suggest everyone go to wikipedia and search for global warming. On that page, you can get global warming information and find a link to "the other side of the story" that discusses scientists who do not agree and why they do not agree. An interesting tidbit I picked up is that while CO2 levels in the atmosphere do tend to correlate to global temperature that there is a lag between a change in one and a change in the other. Unfortunately for the sky-is-falling crowd, it appears that change in CO2 FOLLOWS change in temperature, not the other way around. There is a simple explanation for this, the amount of CO2 that the oceans can hold is dependent on ocean temperature. If you raise ocean temperature then the ocean holds less CO2 and so it must escape into the atmosphere. It evidently takes upwards of 100 years for the levels to equalize. There are documented periods in which CO2 levels and global temperatures do not correlate. There are examples of both high CO2/low temperature and low CO2/high temperature.

I also saw a headline, "temperatures warmest in the last 2000 years." Whoever wrote this is either a liar or ignorant. There was a very significant warm period from 800-1300. AFAIR, temperatures then were on the order of a degree warmer then temperatures now. This period witnessed an explosion in population growth as growing seasons were extended. After this period, there was a very quick cooling which caused crop failures and widespread starvation across much of the globe. There was a pretty fair and balanced look at this on TV the other day but I can't remember what channel.

[hrothgar]

DrTodd13, on Jun 27 2006, 02:45 AM, said:

I would suggest everyone go to wikipedia and search for global warming. On that page, you can get global warming information and find a link to "the other side of the story" that discusses scientists who do not agree and why they do not agree. An interesting tidbit I picked up is that while CO2 levels in the atmosphere do tend to correlate to global temperature that there is a lag between a change in one and a change in the other. Unfortunately for the sky-is-falling crowd, it appears that change in CO2 FOLLOWS change in temperature, not the other way around. There is a simple explanation for this, the amount of CO2 that the oceans can hold is dependent on ocean temperature. If you raise ocean temperature then the ocean holds less CO2 and so it must escape into the atmosphere. It evidently takes upwards of 100 years for the levels to equalize. There are documented periods in which CO2 levels and global temperatures do not correlate. There are examples of both high CO2/low temperature and low CO2/high temperature.

Another quote from Real Climate

What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?
Filed under:

* Paleoclimate
* Greenhouse gases
* FAQ

— group @ 9:42 am - (fr flag)

This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it. At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so.

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]

[joshs]

mike777, on Jun 24 2006, 05:26 PM, said:

1) Our goal is not too save money, therefore saving energy is not our goal.
2) Let's assume our goal is to maximize NPV ( net present value) on an absolute basis.
3) Let's assume killing  off most of humanity will not maximize NPV on an absolute basis.
4) Let's assume tax policy by definition cannot make energy as cheap and plentiful as possible. It may help or hurt.
4) Let's assume tax policy cannot by definition maximize NPV. It may help or hurt.
5) Let's assume making energy as cheap and plentiful as possible will maximize NPV.
6) ergo we have a plan towards our goal. Now we can all debate how to make energy cheap and plentiful without killing  us off.
7) If your priority is to redistribute wealth please ignore all of the above.

Its fine to think in net present value terms, the problem is at any one time, how do I compute current value (before I convert that to present value via the geometric average inflation rate). For instance, what is the value of being alive but not producing anything. The value of free time? Etc.

Lets consider 3 scenarios:
Scenario A: I work to 65, I spend the next 15 years traveling and enjoying life and live in good health to 80 when I die. At which point, half of my life savings remains which is given to my kids.

Scenario B: I work to 65, get sick because the water in my town is poluted, live 15 more years with medical care. The money I would have spent traveling is paid to medical professionals. At 80 I die, and half my life savings is given to my kids.

Scenario C: I work until age 65 and then die due to being poisoned from the polluted water in my town ( death was sudden) and I gave all of my life savings to my kids.

Judging from the money people spends on health care and keeping in shape and other lifestyle decisions people makes, its clear that the market greatly values scenario A over B and C, but how do you quantify that value? (I think this is possible to do but very tricky). The net amount of wealth in society is the same in all 3 scenarios.

The point is that total net wealth is not a good measure of current value, so you have to be careful in figuring out what the variable is that you are trying to optimize.
(As another example, consider 2 scenarios one where everyone works 4 hours a day and the other where everyone works 12 hours a day to produce the same wealth. The first scenario has much higher "value" than the second...)

[pbleighton]

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27...e.ap/index.html

Consensus, anyone?

Peter

[luke warm]

as i said in a previous post, there are many competent scientists (ones who actually study the climate and the earth) who both agree and disagree with the inventor of the internet's contentions... but the word 'concensus' has to be taken in context

Quote

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Quote

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Quote

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Quote

Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But KarlÈn clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," KarlÈn concludes.

there are, of course, many more who dispute the "science" used by gore... but frankly, i'm not personally qualified to even view the data, much less analyze it... since i've yet to see any bbf poster who is, that simply mean that we all appeal to whatever authority most closely mirrors our own ideologies - and it's pretty obvious from reading these posts just who has which ideology

[Al_U_Card]

More news from the past......All of the "great" extinctions (Permian, Devonian and yes, even the Tertiary-Cretaceous) appear to be the result of ....wait for it.....GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!

Massive lava outflows (the Deccan in India, 65 million years ago) increased the greenhouse gas content, lowering ocean oxygen levels, increasing H2S levels from the resultant microbial growth in the oceans, causing destruction of the ozone layer, poisoning of the land surface and de-oxygenating the oceans. The asteroid hit at Chixhulub was like the cherry on a sundae. It just provided an added hit.

The CO2 content needs to get above 1000 ppm (so at current levels we are safe for about 150 years.....)

The only problem is that the ice age scenarios are independant of this and fluctuate at maxima of where we are now both CO2 and global temperature wise. Thus, why hasn't Europe started to freeze over yet? Maybe the CO2 will heat the earth enough to just melt the polar caps but compensate for the loss of heat from the gulf stream as it peters out.....

Nice scenario, keep CO2 levels high enough to stop the ice age but low enough to prevent the extinction of life on earth as we know it. Kind of makes the rest of our problems pale in comparison.