Is trying to alter the climate a waste of money?

[Mick West]

A carbon tax is in itself not that bad on its own . . . it is the capacity of the billions to fall into misuse, corruption, etc. . . who will administer the tax, who will decide to allocate the monies . . . it is all way too complex to work . . . when carbon fuels get too expensive then alternatives will evolve on their own . . . start with removing catalytic converters which produce NOx . . . that would reduce a very destructive greenhouse gas . . .

By the time carbon fuels get too expensive, then it will be too late to do anything about the carbon emissions. The market cannot adjust to this by itself.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

Putting a price on carbon emissions is often discussed as one of the main solutions to anthropogenic global warming. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant and in economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality – a negative effect on a party not directly involved in a transaction, which results in a market failure. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change concluded that climate change represents "the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen."

Content from External Source

I'd be happy to put the EPA in charge, and have them mandate emissions reductions like under the clean air act, but if a carbon tax is the only option then I'll take it. It's no more likely to result in corruption than any other tax or excise.

 

[George B]

By the time carbon fuels get too expensive, then it will be too late to do anything about the carbon emissions. The market cannot adjust to this by itself.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm

Putting a price on carbon emissions is often discussed as one of the main solutions to anthropogenic global warming. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant and in economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality – a negative effect on a party not directly involved in a transaction, which results in a market failure. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change concluded that climate change represents "the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen."

Content from External Source

I'd be happy to put the EPA in charge, and have them mandate emissions reductions like under the clean air act, but if a carbon tax is the only option then I'll take it. It's no more likely to result in corruption than any other tax or excise.

Sounds like the choice between the devil and the deep blue sea to me . . . I guess the question is . . . what happens if we continue to do what we are doing and how long before a disaster . . . you really think a Carbon Tax will work???? I think that is about as speculative as will geoengineering work . . . and just as likely to end in unacceptable side effects . . .

 

[Mick West]

No, I don't think it will work as it's currently going. It needs to be more agressive. However I think it helps. It might help prevent a tipping point, but it's not stopping the long term rise in temperature. We need to get down to around 350ppm.



http://www.350.org/

Geoengineering looks like it might be needed in coming decades. I'm pretty sure no matter what the next 100 years will have climate change as the major driving factor in just about everything.

 

[MikeC]

One of the reasons to conduct research is to find out just how deep and how blue the sea is...so to speak. Unless we have information on that we are just guessing which option might be best at any given time.

 

[George B]

No, I don't think it will work as it's currently going. It needs to be more agressive. However I think it helps. It might help prevent a tipping point, but it's not stopping the long term rise in temperature. We need to get down to around 350ppm.



http://www.350.org/

Geoengineering looks like it might be needed in coming decades. I'm pretty sure no matter what the next 100 years will have climate change as the major driving factor in just about everything.

Hmmmm . . . the question is when to experiment with Geoengineering not if we should . . .

 

[George B]

One of the reasons to conduct research is to find out just how deep and how blue the sea is...so to speak. Unless we have information on that we are just guessing which option might be best at any given time.

I agree . . . do we know we are getting all the information . . .??? Most believe the information is available and shared equally to all interested parties . . . I am skeptical of that . . .

 

[MikeC]

Fine - so by all means search out data that is not shared and highlight it (and whatever process doesn't share it)

I look forward to an improved understanding and more data as a result of your efforts.

Although to be honest I think the general public does not really understand all the data there is at the moment anyway!!

 

[Mick West]

Hmmmm . . . the question is when to experiment with Geoengineering not if we should . . .

Not really. The question is when to devote time and money to researching geoengineering short of deployment. There is a vast amount of stuff to figure out before any full scale tests - which are probably decades off.

 

[George B]

Fine - so by all means search out data that is not shared and highlight it (and whatever process doesn't share it)

I look forward to an improved understanding and more data as a result of your efforts.

Although to be honest I think the general public does not really understand all the data there is at the moment anyway!!

If it is not shared . . . how would I document that which I don't have access . . .??

 

[George B]

Not really. The question is when to devote time and money to researching geoengineering short of deployment. There is a vast amount of stuff to figure out before any full scale tests - which are probably decades off.

Your opinion is even more complex . . .

A Test for Geoengineering?


Summary


Scientific and political interest in the possibility of geoengineering the climate is rising (1). There are currently no means of implementing geoengineering, but if a viable technology is produced in the next decade, how could it be tested? We argue that geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation. The initial production of aerosol droplets can be tested on a small scale, but how they will grow in size (which determines the injection rate needed to produce a particular cooling) can only be tested by injection into an existing aerosol cloud, which cannot be confined to one location. Furthermore, weather and climate variability preclude observation of the climate response without a large, decade-long forcing. Such full-scale implementation could disrupt food production on a large scale.


A Test for Geoengineering?
A Robock, M Bunzl, B Kravitz… - Science, 2010 - sciencemag.org
... The cloud would have to be maintained in the stratosphere to allow the climate system to cool in response, unlike for the Pinatubo case, when the cloud fell out of the ... Furthermore, no stratospheric aerosol observing system exists to monitor the effects of any in situ testing. ...


http://m.sciencemag.org/content/327/5965/530.short

Content from External Source

 

[Belfrey]

Fine - so by all means search out data that is not shared and highlight it (and whatever process doesn't share it)

I look forward to an improved understanding and more data as a result of your efforts.

Although to be honest I think the general public does not really understand all the data there is at the moment anyway!!

I agree, and one of the things that I've always enjoyed about the climate change issue is that so much of the data used by researchers is available online. It's very handy to be able to get the datasets to make one's own graphs and such. I can't think of another field of research where this is true to the same extent. Check out the Data Sources page at realclimate.org - links to raw and processed climate data, model outputs, model codes, etc.

 

[MikeC]

I agree, and one of the things that I've always enjoyed about the climate change issue is that so much of the data used by researchers is available online. It's very handy to be able to get the datasets to make one's own graphs and such. I can't think of another field of research where this is true to the same extent. Check out the Data Sources page at realclimate.org - links to raw and processed climate data, model outputs, model codes, etc.

George won't be able to do that - he doesn't recognise embedded links!!

 

[George B]

George won't be able to do that - he doesn't recognise embedded links!!

I use an IPhone mostly with a tiny screen . . . imbedded links without a distinctive look is not easy to see . . . the color difference is not always noticed . . .

 

[MikeC]

iPhones are quite clever now you can make text larger......

 

[George B]

iPhones are quite clever now you can make text larger......

They can . . .

 

[Jazzy]

A carbon tax is in itself not that bad on its own . . . it is the capacity of the billions to fall into misuse, corruption, etc. . . who will administer the tax, who will decide to allocate the monies . . . it is all way too complex to work . . . when carbon fuels get too expensive then alternatives will evolve on their own . . . start with removing catalytic converters which produce NOx . . . that would reduce a very destructive greenhouse gas . . .

There is education to the point where each individual becomes conscious of his own carbon footprint.
There are concepts of self-sufficiency, autonomous housing, and permaculture which each help to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

People have always been corrupt. Even in successful societies they were.

NOx is soluble, and therefore quickly eliminated. CFCs weren't. They were stable. That made them dangerous.

 

[Joe]

How about we just stop Geoengineering ? Why spend millions of dollars and take a chance making thing worse ? I actually believe they are doing it and making it worse right now.

 

[Mick West]

But they are not doing it. There's no evidence they are doing it. And you won't find any geoengineering researcher who thinks we are doing it (where "it" is atmospheric SRM).

We have to research it though, to decide if it could be done, and to inform governance and international agreements.

 

[MikeC]

It is worth noting that running hydrocarbon-powered vehicles is geoengineering (unless you don't believe carbon affects the climate at all.....in which case it isn't).

I don't think TCW is suggesting that we should stop using fossil fuels immediately tho.

Are you??

 

[Joe]

It is worth noting that running hydrocarbon-powered vehicles is geoengineering (unless you don't believe carbon affects the climate at all.....in which case it isn't).

I don't think TCW is suggesting that we should stop using fossil fuels immediately tho.

Are you??

No not at all . I love gas guzzling cars ,

 

[Joe]

But they are not doing it. There's no evidence they are doing it. And you won't find any geoengineering researcher who thinks we are doing it (where "it" is atmospheric SRM).

We have to research it though, to decide if it could be done, and to inform governance and international agreements.

There is no evedence someone is not either ? why should they geoengineer anyway ? Global warming doesnt exist or at least man made ,

 

[Belfrey]

There is no evedence someone is not either ?

TCS, you've been in these discussions long enough to understand why the burden of evidence logically falls on the positive claim.

Global warming doesnt exist or at least man made

Even most AGW "skeptics" these days agree that global warming is real. To what natural forcing do you attribute the recent warming trend?

 

[Joe]

TCS, you've been in these discussions long enough to understand why the burden of evidence logically falls on the positive claim.

Even most AGW "skeptics" these days agree that global warming is real. To what natural forcing do you attribute the recent warming trend?

I dont know but neither does any one else its all theory and false data . look at the above picture of Jerusalem worst snow in 20 years and China and Russia has been colder then normal . Yet here in Florida its been warmer then Iv ever seen it . When you get a government grant to study the climate and the same government wants to get a carbon tax passed what do you think the outcome will be ?

 

[Met Watch]

I dont know but neither does any one else its all theory and false data . look at the above picture of Jerusalem worst snow in 20 years and China and Russia has been colder then normal . Yet here in Florida its been warmer then Iv ever seen it . When you get a government grant to study the climate and the same government wants to get a carbon tax passed what do you think the outcome will be ?

I wouldn't make any rash conclusions until the global mean average temperature is calculated. A cold snap in China and Jerusalem alone is not going to automatically "debunk" global warming.

 

[Joe]

I wouldn't make any rash conclusions until the global mean average temperature is calculated. A cold snap in China and Jerusalem alone is not going to automatically "debunk" global warming.

The problem is when they make it about money and taxes . Al Gore sure didnt help either . Setting up CCX so he could make billions . I live in Florida I could care less if the temp rises and the sea level rises a little , youll never stop China and India from emmiting massive amounts of Co2 . The fact that they consider Co2 a danger scares the daylights out of me considering I exhale co2 all the time . Plant more trees its safer and cheaper .

 

[Mick West]

I dont know but neither does any one else its all theory and false data . look at the above picture of Jerusalem worst snow in 20 years and China and Russia has been colder then normal . Yet here in Florida its been warmer then Iv ever seen it . When you get a government grant to study the climate and the same government wants to get a carbon tax passed what do you think the outcome will be ?

Global warming results in EXTREMES in weather, as there is more energy in the system. It does not simply move all temperatures up half a degree. It moved some up 10, and some down 9.5 (simplifying, but you get the idea).

But images like the above confuse people who think it should just get warmer. That's why the more accurate phrase "climate change" is preferred now.

 

[Joe]

But they are not doing it. There's no evidence they are doing it. And you won't find any geoengineering researcher who thinks we are doing it (where "it" is atmospheric SRM).

We have to research it though, to decide if it could be done, and to inform governance and international agreements.

But in the end who gets to decide ? The governments .The UN ? We all know how reliable and trustworthy they can be

 

[Joe]

Global warming results in EXTREMES in weather, as there is more energy in the system. It does not simply move all temperatures up half a degree. It moved some up 10, and some down 9.5 (simplifying, but you get the idea).

But images like the above confuse people who think it should just get warmer. That's why the more accurate phrase "climate change" is preferred now.

Sure the climate always changes and no one really understands why do they ?

 

[MikeC]

I don't care whether global warming is man-made or not.

If "natural" processes raise the oceans and make living conditions difficult for billions then why would we not seek to mitigate them?

 

[Belfrey]

Sure the climate always changes and no one really understands why do they ?

Scientists actually know quite a lot about why climate changes naturally. But there are no natural forcings that have been acting in a way that can explain the warming trend in recent decades, and it's consistent with what is expected from the observed increase in CO2.

 

[Jazzy]

Science demonstrates that carbon dioxide (and the other "greenhouse gases") regulate the atmospheric temperature, and that fossil carbon dioxide is "geo-engineering" climate change right now.

Nobody is actually telling us to stop burning non-renewable fuels, but even if we stopped tomorrow we are still heading into a world full of hurt.

Whatever Woo says isn't worth a plugged nickel, as it is always diametrically-opposed to "truth".

I would rather a real enemy than Woo. Enemies can be honest but Woo never is.

 

[scombrid]

I dont know but neither does any one else its all theory and false data . look at the above picture of Jerusalem worst snow in 20 years and China and Russia has been colder then normal .

Wow worst snow in 20 years and Russia is below average. Yep, that means that the global mean is unchanged.

Actually it means nothing and does not fall outside the expected outcome of a warmer average. There is still a massive variance on normal. The variability of weather isn't going to dissappear with all days suddenly becoming warmer than average. Even if temperature and weather events occur in a normal distribution around a mean you still have tails in that distribution that are far above and below that mean, especially in the middle latitudes in winter. Take southeast Virginia (weather station at ORF). The "normal" overnight low in January is about 33F and average high is 48F. Last year was 38F for the avg low and 56F for the avg high. It has been as cold as -3F and as warm as 84F for daily records in the 140 history of the weather station. If you shift the average high temperature from 48F to 49F and the low from 33F to 34F then you will still see periods of weather both above and below those values because the January climate in southeast Virginia (and at most other continenal mid latitude locations) is highly variable and dependent on the relative position of the jet stream.

To gage the trajectory of climate you have to look at the trend in the mean over a long time and the frequency of occurrance of above and below average conditions. If the trend is warmer, then the frequency of occurrance of warmer weather is greater than cooler but you still see plenty of cooler.

 

[Joe]

I don't care whether global warming is man-made or not.

If "natural" processes raise the oceans and make living conditions difficult for billions then why would we not seek to mitigate them?

Billions ? Sea level rise when you live on a sand bar means you move further inland

 

[Met Watch]

Billions ? Sea level rise when you live on a sand bar means you move further inland

Yes, billions. Do you know how many people on this planet live close to the shoreline? In the United States, New Zealand (I've been to Auckland this spring, and a rise in sea level spells bad news for that city), or how about Australia (18 million live close to shore)? We're not talking a sea rise of a few inches. We're talking in feet.

 

[Mick West]

Floria especially. Check this out, adjust the slider for different sea-level rises:

http://cegis.usgs.gov/video/30m/FloridaSLR.swf

 

[joe24pack]

Man made Global Warming is a SCAM.

Pay your carbon taxes to Al Gore and Lord Rothschild and they will save you.

Who came up with Carbon Taxes? Oh yes it was Ken Lay of Enron.

Nothing suspicious at all about that. Nothing to see here. Back to your football programming.

 

[scombrid]

Billions ? Sea level rise when you live on a sand bar means you move further inland

Billions live in area vulnerable to a relatively small sea level rise. Moving them inland will displace a lot of people. Then there are effects beyond simply displacing large populations.

 

[Mick West]

Man made Global Warming is a SCAM.

Pay your carbon taxes to Al Gore and Lord Rothschild and they will save you.

Who came up with Carbon Taxes? Oh yes it was Ken Lay of Enron.

A carbon tax (if there was one, there is no national carbon tax in the the US) would be paid to the treasury. I'm not sure why anyone thinks Al Gore would benefit from a carbon tax.

Ken Lay did not come up with carbon taxes. It's an obvious economic response to a negative externality. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

 

[joe24pack]

A carbon tax (if there was one, there is no national carbon tax in the the US) would be paid to the treasury. I'm not sure why anyone thinks Al Gore would benefit from a carbon tax.

Ken Lay did not come up with carbon taxes. It's an obvious economic response to a negative externality. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

A carbon tax trading exchange (like the stock market) involves intermediaries, and brokers and all the other nonsense involved with this scheme.

Al Gore and Lord Rothschild set up the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to benefit from this (to the tune of billions of dollars)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-set-to-become-first-carbon-billionaire.html

But you knew all this right? For someone who posts as much as you do, you would have known about this as it's common knowledge.

 

[Mick West]

A carbon tax trading exchange (like the stock market) involves intermediaries, and brokers and all the other nonsense involved with this scheme.

Al Gore and Lord Rothschild set up the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) to benefit from this (to the tune of billions of dollars)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-gore-set-to-become-first-carbon-billionaire.html

But you knew all this right? For someone who posts as much as you do, you would have known about this as it's common knowledge.

It's certainly a commonly repeated theory. But how does Al Gore benefit from the CCX? he does not seem to have any stake in it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange

And you link says nothing about the CCX. Nor does it provide any evidence that Al Gore is a "Carbon Billionaire" - it just says that the NYT says that Gore opponents throw that charge at him.

You argument is really based on the assumption that anthropogenic climate change being a big lie. So maybe you should address that first. If Gore actually WAS lying, then his investments would indeed seem suspicious. But if AGW is real, then it makes perfect sense for him to invest in green technology.