Climate change

[Winstonm]

From the Richard Muller op-ed:

 

These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does

 

I believe I have stated nearly exactly this same sentiment. I have yet to see a denier offer a valid explanation that fits the data.

[Zelandakh]

The concept of a tipping point is pure speculation at this point.

No, really it is not. There is very strong evidence from the historical record that masss extinctions were triggered by reaching a tipping point and it is probable that temperature was the major factor in this. What is currently speculation is precisely where these tipping points occur along the way. But their existence is based on very good science.

 

As hrothgar points out, many civilisations throughout history have collapsed with the primary cause being climate change. That said, I am confident that the matter will be dealt with in the end. We basically have the technology already to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere. It is really just a matter of deciding who pays and when. In the meantime, it makes sense for countries like China, India and Brazil to grow as much as possible so that they can better afford the bill when it is finally necessary to pay it and so that they can get a chunk of the pie for building whichever technology ends up being agreed.

[hrothgar]

We basically have the technology already to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere.

 

Other than planting trees, I'm not aware of any kind of solution for removing carbon from the atmosphere that isn't cost prohibitive.

 

Removing small amounts of atmospheric CO2 is relatively cheap, however, doing this on a large scale requires massive amounts of energy.

As a rule, its a lot more energy efficient not to dump the C02 in the atmopshere in the first place than trying to remove it later on.

 

If we had wide scale cheap solar, thermal, wind, tidal online this would be another story.

I can easily imagine a wind generator being used to opportunistically power a C02 scrubber of some kind. However, this is a long ways off...

[Daniel1960]

While local pockets of civilizations have collapsed due to local climate changes (The Mayan empire), they are the exception, rather than the rule. This is completely separate from the mass extinctions recorded throughout history, and to which was referred earlier. These past extinctions, which average about 50% of life (not the 99.99% mentioned previously), have been theorized to have been caused by more sudden, catastrophic events, like supervolcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, or continental breakup leading to changes in ocean currents. These events caused large scale cooling, not warming (which is never mentioned as an extinction cause). Of these, only the continental breakup theory could be classified as a "tipping point," but it is still separate from the idea postulated about climate change. The others occurred suddenly, resulting in reduced sunlight, large scale cooling, and loss of plant life. Nowhere in history has large scale warming been implicated in any extinction event or civilization collapse. The most common climate-oriented theory for the collapse of civilizations is drought, which correlates with cooler, rather than warmer temperatures - the Mayan collapse is thought to have occurred during several multi-year droughts during the 8th and 9th century cold period. Historically, warmer periods lead to more rainfall, and consequently more flooding. Cooler periods have the opposite effect. While there are always locations around the Earth experiencing flooding and others experiencing drought-like conditions, past climate changes have lead to an increase of one or the other, not both. Several paper support this contention, including the following:

 

http://www.nature.com/nchina/2012/120104/full/nchina.2012.4.html

 

Some people seem to thing this is stupid. To those, I suggest a more scientific understanding of the subject.

[Zelandakh]

These events caused large scale cooling, not warming (which is never mentioned as an extinction cause).

Blatantly untrue according to the current ideas. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is a good example of sustained warming that led to mass extinctions. Warming (something like 6 degrees) is also related to the PermianTriassic extinction event (aka the Great Dying) where more than 95% of marine species became extinct and it is not unlikely that it played a role in other events too.

[hrothgar]

While local pockets of civilizations have collapsed due to local climate changes (The Mayan empire), they are the exception, rather than the rule. This is completely separate from the mass extinctions recorded throughout history, and to which was referred earlier.

 

Just so we're clear: Collapse of civilizations is considered acceptable, while mass extinctions are not?

 

FWIW, rather than stating that the collapse of large civilizations like the Mayan Empire is a rare event, you might do better by considering "What type of events cause large / complex civilizations to fail". Changes in climate rates as one of the biggies... (Especially if you're allowed to factor in migration patterns)

[Winstonm]

While local pockets of civilizations have collapsed due to local climate changes (The Mayan empire), they are the exception, rather than the rule. This is completely separate from the mass extinctions recorded throughout history, and to which was referred earlier. These past extinctions, which average about 50% of life (not the 99.99% mentioned previously), have been theorized to have been caused by more sudden, catastrophic events, like supervolcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, or continental breakup leading to changes in ocean currents. These events caused large scale cooling, not warming (which is never mentioned as an extinction cause). Of these, only the continental breakup theory could be classified as a "tipping point," but it is still separate from the idea postulated about climate change. The others occurred suddenly, resulting in reduced sunlight, large scale cooling, and loss of plant life. Nowhere in history has large scale warming been implicated in any extinction event or civilization collapse. The most common climate-oriented theory for the collapse of civilizations is drought, which correlates with cooler, rather than warmer temperatures - the Mayan collapse is thought to have occurred during several multi-year droughts during the 8th and 9th century cold period. Historically, warmer periods lead to more rainfall, and consequently more flooding. Cooler periods have the opposite effect. While there are always locations around the Earth experiencing flooding and others experiencing drought-like conditions, past climate changes have lead to an increase of one or the other, not both. Several paper support this contention, including the following:

 

http://www.nature.com/nchina/2012/120104/full/nchina.2012.4.html

 

Some people seem to thing this is stupid. To those, I suggest a more scientific understanding of the subject.

 

I can't seem to keep up with your train of thought. First, (if my memory serves and that is growing more doubtful), you seem to imply that GW is not really occurring. Next, you seemed to say that GW may be occurring, but it certainly isn't AGW. Now, it appears as if you are arguing that regardless, any type of GW is unimportant and should be ignored until required to face - if ever.

 

To me, you seem to be someone who is fighting hard to maintain the status quo, regardless if the status quo reflects reality.

 

Curious. In my limited experience, I seem to find this type thinking more with the right wing of the Republican party than anywhere else, and particularly with the Christian Right branch of Republicans. The oddest aspect is that the higher the degree of education, the more certain this thinking becomes.

 

I don't understand that type thinking but I'm not from Texas, either.

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm, (and also Zelandakh and hrothgar),

While both of our memories may be fading with age, I have no recollection of making any of those claims. First, I have responded repeatedly that the planet has warmed over the past 150 years or so. Secondly, I have never stated that the observed GW is not AGW, although I have certainly argued about how much is natural compared to manmade. This is probably the biggest area of uncertainty in the scientific data. I do not agree with either the claims of 0% or 100% (some even higher) warming due to CO2, but would not object to values around 50% (acknowledging that values significantly higher or lower are plausible). With regards to GW being unimportant, that was only in regards to mass extinction and civilization collapses. While history tells of the collapse of many civilizations due to climate, the most common causes are drought or severe cold, both of which affect agriculture. Compare the expanse of human civilization with the temperature plot.

 

http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0921818111001457-gr8.jpg

 

FYI, the Mayan collapse occurred around the time of the temperature dip just before the Medieval Warm Period. Why are you suggesting that the collapse of a civilization is acceptable?

 

Yes, the P-E extinction has a corresponding temperature increase, and it is the exception rather than the rule (and a smaller extinction event also), affecting primarily plant life, less so animal. The cause of the Great Drying is largely unknown, but speculation centers on volcanism or an asteroid.

 

I like to confine my analyses to the scientific aspects of GW, and generally ignore political, social, and religious beliefs. In science, any new theory which detracts from the status quo has to pass rigorous muster before being accepted. Some (plate tectonics) become the new status quo, while others (static universe) fade away. If catastrophic global warming becomes reality (or enough evidence suggest that it will), then it will become the new status quo, otherwise, it will fall onto the junk pile alongside cold fusion. Science is all about truth and reality. While some people are predicting a catstrophic climate collapse, unless science evidence supports these predictions (which may occur), I will not jump aboard the bandwagon. Maybe, you can understand that type of thinking.

[luke warm]

If we had wide scale cheap solar, thermal, wind, tidal online this would be another story. I can easily imagine a wind generator being used to opportunistically power a C02 scrubber of some kind. However, this is a long ways off...

what do you suggest, while we wait?

[hrothgar]

what do you suggest, while we wait?

 

Significant cuts in carbon emission implemented with a carbon tax

(Same policy I've been advocating for several years on this board)

[luke warm]

Significant cuts in carbon emission implemented with a carbon tax (Same policy I've been advocating for several years on this board)

and those "remedies" would have no adverse effect on the economy?

[Cyberyeti]

and those "remedies" would have no adverse effect on the economy?

Tax just shovels money around, it doesn't create or destroy it. Given what governments usually do with it, probably not great for the economy, but if the carbon tax is used to fund renewables, cleaner industry and carbon capture technology, needn't be a disaster.

[phil_20686]

and those "remedies" would have no adverse effect on the economy?

 

Well you would be building renewable energy instead of non renewable, since the price is higher, that means you will be devoting more of your economic production to energy than otherwise, which is a `cost' in some sense, but given how much you might save in the long run its not obvious that you can evaluate the possible costs sensibly at all.

[hrothgar]

Tax just shovels money around, it doesn't create or destroy it.

 

IN this case, shoveling money around is precisely what we're trying to do

 

The cost of using carbon to produce energy is artificially low because of externalities.

Therefore, people consume more of it than is considered optimal.

To compensate, burning carbon should be taxed so that the cost born by the individual reflects the one paid by society.

 

This is econ 101 stuff as taught in any undergraduate program.

[hrothgar]

and those "remedies" would have no adverse effect on the economy?

 

"No adverse effect on the economy" isn't an appropriate design criteria.

[phil_20686]

Tax just shovels money around, it doesn't create or destroy it.

 

Every tax needs people to administer it, which is a cost. There is also an opportunity cost, since the individual being taxed would presumeably have spent it in the way most pleasing to him, tax on gains if you spend it in a way less pleasing to him, which is a cost. Although its also "not real" as presumably someone is getting a benefit they could not otherwise afford.

 

To put it in perspective, the IRS in america costs about 14bn$, or roughly 1% of gdp. I think anything up to about 3% of gdp on administering tax is quite normal.

 

But yes, there are any number of ways a government can spend money where the return on investment is higher than the cost of administering the tax, which is probably why having tax takes between 30-50% don't have a huge or reliable effect on gdp growth.

[billw55]

Tax just shovels money around, it doesn't create or destroy it. Given what governments usually do with it, probably not great for the economy, but if the carbon tax is used to fund renewables, cleaner industry and carbon capture technology, needn't be a disaster.

.. and this is exactly what won't happen. Governments are famous for reallocating (some would say stealing) revenues ostensibly earmarked for certain purposes. When there is a big bowl of money, politicians and bureaucrats just can't keep their hands out it.

[Daniel1960]

FYI for those interested in cap and trade.

 

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/2012/03/15/cap-and-trade-programs-do-not-provide-sufficient-incentives/

[Cyberyeti]

Tax just shovels money around, it doesn't create or destroy it. Given what governments usually do with it, probably not great for the economy, but if the carbon tax is used to fund renewables, cleaner industry and carbon capture technology, needn't be a disaster.

 

.. and this is exactly what won't happen. Governments are famous for reallocating (some would say stealing) revenues ostensibly earmarked for certain purposes. When there is a big bowl of money, politicians and bureaucrats just can't keep their hands out it.

Hence the "Given what governments usually do with it" part of my post.

 

And yes Phil, tax does take cost to administer, but also creates a larger pot of money which ought to be able to recoup that with economies of scale but rarely does.

[phil_20686]

FYI for those interested in cap and trade.

 

http://newscenter.lb...ent-incentives/

 

I read that article, it was interesting throughout, but the whole article is scripted as if this was a failure for cap and trade, when it seems like a huge success. Merely by being instituted companies instituted SO2 reduction schemes that were much more successful than anticipated, so much so as to render the cap and trade plan moderately worthless as it now had much too many permits. However, the article appears to argue that Cap and Trade is pointless on the grounds that there was no actual trading, but SO2 reduction was the goal, and there is only no trading because they were to sucessful at reduction. I score that as an epic win.

 

EDIT: Its actually a pretty good mini example of how monetary policy is effective. Since the `central bank' is the one issuing permits, it can achieve price stability by dynamically changing the rate of issue according to the price.

[Daniel1960]

Phil,

 

I am not sure that I would call it a win or a failure. My take is that there is nothing special about cap and trade, and that any real effort would have had a similar result.

[luke warm]

Well you would be building renewable energy instead of non renewable, since the price is higher, that means you will be devoting more of your economic production to energy than otherwise, which is a `cost' in some sense, but given how much you might save in the long run its not obvious that you can evaluate the possible costs sensibly at all.

give me an example of what you're talking about re: "building renewable energy rather than non-renewable"

[Zelandakh]

Luke, I think it is clear here that Phil means solar, wind, hydro and tidal. If we are talking specifically about carbon emissions then one should really throw nuclear into the equation too, as well as some smaller-scale options such as capturing the heat from certain processes (such as incineration) and recycling it.

[luke warm]

Luke, I think it is clear here that Phil means solar, wind, hydro and tidal. If we are talking specifically about carbon emissions then one should really throw nuclear into the equation too, as well as some smaller-scale options such as capturing the heat from certain processes (such as incineration) and recycling it.

ok, are those of you proposing carbon taxes saying that the money collected from such a tax will go toward r & d of "new" technology?

[phil_20686]

ok, are those of you proposing carbon taxes saying that the money collected from such a tax will go toward r & d of "new" technology?

 

There is a strong incentive to use the cheapest form of energy possible. Carbon Tax makes fossil fuels more expensive, and thus diverts resources towards building renewables. It also puts incentives on company to take steps to save energy, but they have that anyway through energy prices.