[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-05, 09:43, said:

Actually there are no scientific measurements from the future, so neither claim can be said to be "far from the scientific measurements."

The problem we face, and it is a complex one, is projecting the future climate using information available now. Doing so requires modeling. You don't evade that requirement by projecting future warming at the rate of warming since the mid-19th century: You simply substitute a much simpler model. There is no reason to suppose that your simpler model will hold in the face of changing conditions, and (I think) plenty of reasons to suppose that it will not.

Mankind has been moving buried carbon to the atmosphere at the rate of billions of tons per year to the point where CO₂ levels are the highest in 15 million years. CO₂ traps heat. We are disturbing a complex system, and no one knows exactly how that will play out. However, sea levels are bound to rise and the people living in low-lying areas already face serious problems. If the North Atlantic Drift is disrupted, Europe will experience adverse consequences.

Because of the uncertainties involved as well as the impending difficulties that can no longer be stopped, conservatives keep pushing for a market-based approach to reduce emissions. To date the conservatives have been losing politically to the Pollyannas, but that has to change. The sooner it does, the better.

The problem with market-based solutions is that first the market must identify a problem and then see the solution to that problem as potentially profitable. If neither problem or profit potential is seen, the market ignores problems. The market sometimes needs guidance and a push start. Pushing the private sector to perform is a role played quite well by the government and government regulations.

Case in point is the standard for water use in toilets. This was never considered a problem for business until 1994. It is now standard for toilets to flush using 1.6 gallons of water - it used to take 3.5 gallons. Government regulations mandated that after 1994 new toilets must use 1.6 gallons or less per flush - and that regulatory effect caused industry to find new ways to utilize water for waste disposal. More efficient use of water for waste disposal is a classic example of good government intervention and good private sector response. Without this joint effort, no doubt we would still be wasting water.

Just as burying one's head into the sand does not alleviate problems, so does discounting the positive effects government can have provides a dark and sand-like insulation for denial.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2014-December-05, 10:17, said:

The problem with market-based solutions is that first the market must identify a problem and then see the solution to that problem as potentially profitable. If neither problem or profit potential is seen, the market ignores problems.

That's why conservatives press for a carbon tax to reflect the adverse externalities of CO₂ emissions. The idea is to make it profitable to provide energy without those adverse externalities, while avoiding allowing lobbyists (and the legislators they've bought) to determine which energy providers become most successful.

The government can make carbon sources of energy more expensive in other ways too, and that might turn out to be what happens -- especially if the Pollyannas hold on until folks get really angry. But I really hope that we can avoid Blackshoe's solution of a "government fiat" and give innovators a free hand with this.

[hrothgar]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-05, 10:34, said:

That's why conservatives press for a carbon tax to reflect the adverse externalities of CO₂ emissions. The idea is to make it profitable to provide energy without those adverse externalities, while avoiding allowing lobbyists (and the legislators they've bought) to determine which energy providers become most successful.

The government can make carbon sources of energy more expensive in other ways too, and that might turn out to be what happens -- especially if the Pollyannas hold on until folks get really angry. But I really hope that we can avoid Blackshoe's solution of a "government fiat" and give innovators a free hand with this.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Blackshoe's includes a carbon tax in his definition of "government fiat".

20 years ago, you might have been right. I can recall conservatives arguing in favor of carbon taxes.
However, that was many election cycles ago.

[mikeh]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-05, 10:13, said:

I note that Nigel apologized to you for his mistake, and you accepted that apology while ignoring that he says in that same post that you were also mistaken. Where's your apology to him?

What is there to apologize for?

He wrote a post very critical of me, using provocative language (I have no issue with provocative language as such and it would be hypocritical of me to say otherwise), in which he misstated the facts. I pointed out to him that he had his facts wrong and that his attack on me, founded as it was on an explicit falsehood, warranted an apology. To my pleasant surprise, he apologized. He went up a notch in my estimation, not that that matters to anyone but me.

In suggesting an apology was in order, I set out, not as fact but as opinion, my inferences as to why he made such posts, the factually false one being far from his first criticism of me. He says my inference is mistaken.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I hold to it still. I consider those who engage in strawman and ad hominem arguments while simultaneously attacking what they see as those tactics in others do not deserve to have their disavowals taken at face value until more evidence is on hand.

I don't apologize for honestly held, honestly expressed opinions when I make it clear that they are opinions. I suspect that you hold a low opinion of me...so what? You can express that as much as you like and I won't ever ask for an apology nor would I dream of thinking I was entitled to one. But start asserting falsities about me or about what I write, and I assure you that I will be calling you out on it. Don't misunderstand me: I am not insinuating that I have seen that or expect that from you. I am merely trying to clarify how I see robust exchanges of view on this forum. I never worry about my ideas being corrected, when I have the facts wrong, or my opinions criticized so long as the criticism is honest. Indeed, I enjoy learning more on topics where it seems my opinions are based on incomplete or erroneous information. As an example, I am grateful to Daniel for his recent posts...I have learned something.

I know I tend to write in a rather arrogant style. I suspect part of that is a reflection of an innate tendency towards arrogance, part of it is because of the effect of the internet, which restricts the ability to convey nuances, and part of it is because of my line of work, in which I am frequently called upon to make clear, positive assertions of my clients' positions and arguments in an adversarial environment. Be that as it may, it is unlikely that I will change my style....tant pis.

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2014-December-05, 11:02, said:

I can recall conservatives arguing in favor of carbon taxes. However, that was many election cycles ago.

Yes, not many conservatives left...

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-05, 10:34, said:

That's why conservatives press for a carbon tax to reflect the adverse externalities of CO₂ emissions. The idea is to make it profitable to provide energy without those adverse externalities, while avoiding allowing lobbyists (and the legislators they've bought) to determine which energy providers become most successful.

The government can make carbon sources of energy more expensive in other ways too, and that might turn out to be what happens -- especially if the Pollyannas hold on until folks get really angry. But I really hope that we can avoid Blackshoe's solution of a "government fiat" and give innovators a free hand with this.

I happen to agree with market solutions - it is in determining problems and establishing parameters that I think government is superior because "the general welfare" should trump corporate profitability as the driving force.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2014-December-05, 12:10, said:

I happen to agree with market solutions - it is in determining problems and establishing parameters that I think government is superior because "the general welfare" should trump corporate profitability as the driving force.

For sure. Corporations should not have to worry about "the general welfare." That's what the government is for.

Legitimate businesses want to compete fairly within a structure, enforced with an even hand by the government, that itself promotes the general welfare of the people.

[mikeh]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-05, 12:24, said:

For sure. Corporations should not have to worry about "the general welfare." That's what the government is for.

Legitimate businesses want to compete fairly within a structure, enforced with an even hand by the government, that itself promotes the general welfare of the people.

I agree wholeheartedly

Government should set and enforce the rules, with societal interests in mind, freeing citizens, and their businesses (which in the US are apparently interchangeable concepts) to pursue their own interests, which (if the rules are well-designed and enforced) will serve to maximize both individual and societal well-being.

I suspect most but the equally deluded communists and libertarians would agree on this basic principle. The problem lies more in how much guidance is needed, as well as to what end.

It would be foolish to expect any business to conduct itself other than selfishly. Some small minority does, and they are to be lauded, but the vast majority don't and that reflects basic aspects of human nature, which aren't going to change soon, if at all.

[Al_U_Card]

Two's company (Lindzen, Dyson) but three is almost a consensus (among tenured emeritus professors that don't depend on climate grants...)
Despite having drank the kool-aid (But the consensus says that the science is settled! We are doomed but we should pay anyway...) at some point, (stop discussing "externalities" and methodologies and take another look at the "science") the obvious will sink in and the scammers will have to find yet another poster-child for their schemes.

[Al_U_Card]

Christmas critiques of those GCM models and their applicability (relevance) to climate projections...

Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al 2008:

Abstract “Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”

Stephens et al. (2010) wrote

“models produce precipitation approximately twice as often as that observed and make rainfall far too lightly…The differences in the character of model precipitation are systemic and have a number of important implications for modeling the coupled Earth system …little skill in precipitation [is] calculated at individual grid points, and thus applications involving downscaling of grid point precipitation to yet even finer-scale resolution has little foundation and relevance to the real Earth system.”

Xu and Yang (2012) find that without tuning from real world observations, the model predictions are in significant error.

“the traditional dynamic downscaling (TDD) [i.e. without tuning) overestimates precipitation by 0.5-1.5 mm d-1…The 2-year return level of summer daily maximum temperature simulated by the TDD is underestimated by 2-6 C over the central United States-Canada region.”

Alan Turing is likely, as regards the parameters used by the GCMs , wiggling in his grave like an elephant's trunk...

[Al_U_Card]

Hockey stick alert! Despite flat-lining global temps and declining public interest in the "sky-is-falling" climate catastrophism, one area has shown a much too precedented rise of late...

The COPs to the UNFCCC (the Conferences of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) have evolved into environmental mega-conferences (Gaventa, 2010). They have become the key networking opportunity for environmental professionals of all colours, and attract increasingly large numbers of diverse participants (Okereke et al., 2009). Beyond the negotiations, it seems to be the desire to network, to exchange information and to be part of a larger climate change constituency that drive attendance (Schroeder and Lovell, 2012)



Update... just shows to go ya...

[Al_U_Card]

And as a present for those who are inordinately worried about sea-level rise, here is some data for New York. The last 20 years or so seem the least threatening of all. (About 8 more inches by 2100 if the overall trend is continued.) Happy holidays!

[Al_U_Card]

Speaking of oceans, their "acidification" is related to.....oceanic warming and cooling cycles? (WHAT? CO2 is yet again not able to control the world?)

What the real data (as opposed to modeled (by Feely et al for instance) studies) says:

[PassedOut]

 Al_U_Card, on 2014-December-23, 09:24, said:

What the real data (as opposed to modeled (by Feely et al for instance) studies) says...

There is no "real data" from the future. There are only predictions based on models, complex or simple. The only argument is about which models are most accurate in reflecting the changing conditions.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-23, 10:20, said:

There is no "real data" from the future. There are only predictions based on models, complex or simple. The only argument is about which models are most accurate in reflecting the changing conditions.

As with most "mission critical" applications, a model that failed out of sample verification would not even be considered for creating projections (eg. stock market projections are based on past performance and are no guarantee of future results) Here, we have models that fail every measure and test applied to them EXCEPT their ability to generate scare scenarios. The answer? Pay no attention to the model behind the curtain and adapt as needed. Are there other indicators/measures that are better at showing correlation to actual situations? Well... we have limited ability to "predict" solar activity with precision and accuracy but it does seem to have more of a relation to warming than [CO2] at least.

[Al_U_Card]

 Al_U_Card, on 2014-December-19, 08:00, said:

Update... just shows to go ya...

You have to know that they are smiling because of yet another meaningless, toothless "agreement" that guarantees yet more meetings and travel and expenditures. A bureaucrat's dream job.

[blackshoe]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-23, 10:20, said:

There is no "real data" from the future.

Which is why the data on that graph stop at roughly 2014.

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-23, 15:43, said:

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-23, 10:20, said:

There is no "real data" from the future.

Which is why the data on that graph stop at roughly 2014.

Exactly. That's why models are necessary to predict the effects of global warming. Because of the complexity of the climate system, the modeling problems are very difficult to solve, and aren't amenable to exact solutions in any case.

However, we don't need exact solutions. We know enough to say that it will be very dangerous not to cut back on CO2 emissions.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2014-December-23, 16:13, said:

Exactly. That's why models are necessary to predict the effects of global warming. Because of the complexity of the climate system, the modeling problems are very difficult to solve, and aren't amenable to exact solutions in any case.

However, we don't need exact solutions. We know enough to say that it will be very dangerous not to cut back on CO2 emissions.

They want expensive "solutions" The only danger that we know of, with certainty, is that the models are unable to represent the real world and that following their projections would be foolish if not ruinous. This particular "science" is being settled in new and interesting ways.

[PassedOut]

 Al_U_Card, on 2014-December-24, 07:25, said:

They want expensive "solutions".

Not at all. That's just the fear of pants-pissers who have no understanding of the power of free markets.

The models that you favor are much more inaccurate than the models of serious climate scientists, and putting faith in your models will create immense expenses over time. It's already too late to avoid some of those expenses, but raising false alarms about the cost of reducing emissions is a fool's errand.