'Climate Panel Says Emissions Are Nearing Upper Limit'

[Dick Whitman]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

 

[User 11148]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

We don't have a carbon tax at this point because, as much as it might make us feel good, India and China ain't gonna quit burning fossil fuels anytime soon. That's Free Rider Economics 101. Unless you wanna go to war with China and India to make 'em pony up.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

We don't have a carbon tax at this point because, as much as it might make us feel good, India and China ain't gonna quit burning fossil fuels anytime soon. That's Free Rider Economics 101. Unless you wanna go to war with China and India to make 'em pony up.

"We" includes India and China.

In fact, I think that other countries should subsidize U.S. climate change laws.

 

[YankeeFan]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

Towards what end? What would it seek to accomplish? Are the goals achievable? Is the cost worth it, especially if the rest of the globe doesn't join in?

Meanwhile, scientists can't explain the "pause" in global warming, and admit that some of the dire warnings were false:

In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous “hockey stick” graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity. The graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade). The upward turn implied that greenhouse gases had become so dominant that future temperatures would rise well above their variability and closely track carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

I knew that wasn’t the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0

 

[Dick Whitman]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

Towards what end? What would it seek to accomplish? Are the goals achievable? Is the cost worth it, especially if the rest of the globe doesn't join in?

Meanwhile, scientists can't explain the "pause" in global warming, and admit that some of the dire warnings were false:

In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous “hockey stick” graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity. The graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade). The upward turn implied that greenhouse gases had become so dominant that future temperatures would rise well above their variability and closely track carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

I knew that wasn’t the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0

You're a denier? I guess I didn't realize that. You're not typically a total idealogue.

Toward what end? Pollution is an externality. Hence, pollution should be taxed, so that polluters have to internalize their costs. Hence, the market is truly reflective of market conditions.

One. Oh. One.

 

[User 11148]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

We don't have a carbon tax at this point because, as much as it might make us feel good, India and China ain't gonna quit burning fossil fuels anytime soon. That's Free Rider Economics 101. Unless you wanna go to war with China and India to make 'em pony up.

"We" includes India and China.

So what? You've studied some economics ... why is it that cartels are so hard to maintain? The incentive to cheat is too strong, and it's hard to detect (and dicey to punish) said cheating. Again, if you're willing, in the extreme, to go to war with India and/or China to enforce carbon restrictions -- and also to overlook the reduction to their standards of living such restrictions would entail -- we'll talk.

 

[trifectarich]

As with so many other problems, we'll realize we'd better do something when the or-else deadline is a week away. Either this or when the ocean overruns Miami.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

We don't have a carbon tax at this point because, as much as it might make us feel good, India and China ain't gonna quit burning fossil fuels anytime soon. That's Free Rider Economics 101. Unless you wanna go to war with China and India to make 'em pony up.

"We" includes India and China.

So what? You've studied some economics ... why is it that cartels are so hard to maintain? The incentive to cheat is too strong, and it's hard to detect (and dicey to punish) said cheating. Again, if you're willing, in the extreme, to go to war with India and/or China to enforce carbon restrictions -- and also to overlook the reduction to their standards of living such restrictions would entail -- we'll talk.

So the alternative is ... let it ride?

China has already recognized its pollution problem, and is starting to take steps to clean it up. They aren't a lost cause. The solution to global warming is a free market one, just as the solution to food scarcity was a free market one that was solved by the industrial revolution. But in order for a free market to function, you need an actual market, where entities pay their freight. If I could start a business tomorrow in which I did not have to pay for my merchandise, even whole sale, I would make a fortune. As you know, this is what industry gets to do. Good work if you can get it.

Go to war with China over it? Maybe we can get the majority party in our own House of Representatives to admit that pollution is a thing first. Then we'll start dickering over policy details.

 

[User 11148]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

Towards what end? What would it seek to accomplish? Are the goals achievable? Is the cost worth it, especially if the rest of the globe doesn't join in?

Meanwhile, scientists can't explain the "pause" in global warming, and admit that some of the dire warnings were false:

In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous “hockey stick” graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity. The graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade). The upward turn implied that greenhouse gases had become so dominant that future temperatures would rise well above their variability and closely track carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

I knew that wasn’t the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0

You're a denier? I guess I didn't realize that. You're not typically a total idealogue.

Toward what end? Pollution is an externality. Hence, pollution should be taxed, so that polluters have to internalize their costs. Hence, the market is truly reflective of market conditions.

One. Oh. One.

OK, so it's "One. Oh. One." that the pollution should be taxed. I agree. The optimal rate is somewhere between $0.000000001 per ton and $1 billion per ton. That's "One. Oh. One," too. The Pigovian tax is a wonderful idea, but translating that idea into practice* is ridiculously difficult, perhaps impossible.

I'm not arguing the alternative is to let it ride. I'm arguing that: 1) doing something just to be doing something ain't the answer; and 2) a carbon tax is probably little more than doing something to be doing something.

*And that's within a given polity ... among polities would be an even more difficult proposition.

 

[YankeeFan]

You're a denier?

What have I denied?

The Earth, over time, has gotten a little bit warmer, but not over the last 15 years.

The climate models created by the experts have not proven true, and some evidence, like the "hockey stick" they knew to be false.

If the models for the last 15 years have been wrong, why should we expect the current models to be correct?

I'm also not convinced the "cure" won't be worse than the disease. Every solution will put a drag on the global economy, leaving millions in poverty. And, there's no guaranty -- or real expectation -- that it will reverse global warming.

I'm not even convinced that the most dire predictions greatly outweigh the global benefits of a modest increase in global temperatures:

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.

Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period.

http://on.wSportsJournalists.com/1bfXtcy

 

[Boom_70]

And in other news use of personal electronics on a plane in takeoff or landing
will crash it.

 

[Dick Whitman]

You're a denier?

What have I denied?

The Earth, over time, has gotten a little bit warmer, but not over the last 15 years.

The climate models created by the experts have not proven true, and some evidence, like the "hockey stick" they knew to be false.

If the models for the last 15 years have been wrong, why should we expect the current models to be correct?

I'm also not convinced the "cure" won't be worse than the disease. Every solution will put a drag on the global economy, leaving millions in poverty. And, there's no guaranty -- or real expectation -- that it will reverse global warming.

I'm not even convinced that the most dire predictions greatly outweigh the global benefits of a modest increase in global temperatures:

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.

Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period.

http://on.wSportsJournalists.com/1bfXtcy

Without a carbon tax, we are subsidizing certain industries.

Picking winners.

 

[User 11148]

You're a denier?

What have I denied?

The Earth, over time, has gotten a little bit warmer, but not over the last 15 years.

The climate models created by the experts have not proven true, and some evidence, like the "hockey stick" they knew to be false.

If the models for the last 15 years have been wrong, why should we expect the current models to be correct?

I'm also not convinced the "cure" won't be worse than the disease. Every solution will put a drag on the global economy, leaving millions in poverty. And, there's no guaranty -- or real expectation -- that it will reverse global warming.

I'm not even convinced that the most dire predictions greatly outweigh the global benefits of a modest increase in global temperatures:

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.

Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period.

http://on.wSportsJournalists.com/1bfXtcy

Without a carbon tax, we are subsidizing certain industries.

Picking winners.

Yeah? Which industries?

 

[Batman]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

We don't have a carbon tax at this point because, as much as it might make us feel good, India and China ain't gonna quit burning fossil fuels anytime soon. That's Free Rider Economics 101. Unless you wanna go to war with China and India to make 'em pony up.

"We" includes India and China.

In fact, I think that other countries should subsidize U.S. climate change laws.

That sound you hear is 2 billion Indian and Chinese people laughing their ass off.

 

[Batman]

Just drop a giant ice cube in the ocean every few years. That'll work.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

We don't have a carbon tax at this point because, as much as it might make us feel good, India and China ain't gonna quit burning fossil fuels anytime soon. That's Free Rider Economics 101. Unless you wanna go to war with China and India to make 'em pony up.

"We" includes India and China.

In fact, I think that other countries should subsidize U.S. climate change laws.

That sound you hear is 2 billion Indian and Chinese people laughing their ass off.

I realize it isn't very politically palatable. But the U.S., China, and India don't have an incentive to reduce emissions. Nations that see this as vital enough should subsidize the U.S., China, and India. They won't. But they should.

 

[LongTimeListener]

You're a denier?

What have I denied?

The Earth, over time, has gotten a little bit warmer, but not over the last 15 years.

The climate models created by the experts have not proven true, and some evidence, like the "hockey stick" they knew to be false.

If the models for the last 15 years have been wrong, why should we expect the current models to be correct?

I'm also not convinced the "cure" won't be worse than the disease. Every solution will put a drag on the global economy, leaving millions in poverty. And, there's no guaranty -- or real expectation -- that it will reverse global warming.

I'm not even convinced that the most dire predictions greatly outweigh the global benefits of a modest increase in global temperatures:

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.

Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period.

http://on.wSportsJournalists.com/1bfXtcy

AP story addresses this.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20130927/EU-Climate-Change/

First off, 15 years is a blip -- "An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years," said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.

And in this specific case, 15 years was 1998, which had uniquely high temperatures. That was the El Nino year for those of us who lived on the West Coast, one that made for hella rain and warmer temperatures. Set the 15-year beginning in a different year and you'll get different results.

 

[User 11148]

Big report out today by leading scientists.

I cannot believe that we don't have a carbon tax in place at this point. It's Free Market Economics 101.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?hp&_r=0

We don't have a carbon tax at this point because, as much as it might make us feel good, India and China ain't gonna quit burning fossil fuels anytime soon. That's Free Rider Economics 101. Unless you wanna go to war with China and India to make 'em pony up.

"We" includes India and China.

In fact, I think that other countries should subsidize U.S. climate change laws.

That sound you hear is 2 billion Indian and Chinese people laughing their ass off.

I realize it isn't very politically palatable. But the U.S., China, and India don't have an incentive to reduce emissions. Nations that see this as vital enough should subsidize the U.S., China, and India. They won't. But they should.

Oh hell, the more likely (and advisable) scenario goes something like this:

A given country (let's call it Lagoonia) is particularly susceptible to rising sea levels (i.e., most of its population lives near-subsistence lives at or near water's edge). Lagoonians allow themselves to be bought out by the U.S., China and India. Lagoonians' low-lying villages are washed away, but Lagoonians themselves live a helluva-lot better life as a result.

 

[User 11148]

"An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years," said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.

Stuff like this drives me crazy. I understand where the guy's coming from, but there's no scientific principle that says 15 is too short but 30 is OK. It's an agree-upon convention that may be workable ... but then again it might spell disaster.

 

[LongTimeListener]

"An old rule says that climate-relevant trends should not be calculated for periods less than around 30 years," said Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the group that wrote the report.

Stuff like this drives me crazy. I understand where the guy's coming from, but there's no scientific principle that says 15 is too short but 30 is OK. It's an agree-upon convention that may be workable ... but then again it might spell disaster.

Ah, what do you know about math and statistics, anyway?