A Lid for the Can of Worms. Good Heavens, We'll Freeze to Death! 41

[ornerynorsk]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/09/arctic-sea-ice-up-60-percent-in-2013/

Take that, Mr. Gore.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - for a tax of $30/tonne on CO2 emissions, your share (and mine, and every other human on the planet), just for the privilege of breathing, would be about $120/year. That may be chump change for you or me, but there are more than a billion people on this planet that subsist on less than that a year.

Plus, to anyone who claims that a carbon [sic] tax will work, I pose this question to you: what is the price elasticity of energy that produce CO2? Sure, you can generate billions of dollars a year - but how much will it change consumption.

I remind you that in the last 40+ years, the world has seen oil prices change from sub-$20 to plus-$100 (constant 2010 dollars - see

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm),

and yet for a few small wiggles, the consumption has only increased. In fact, it one were to infer a correlation between price and consumption (see

http://chartsbin.com/view/oc2),

one could infer a negative price elasticity - as prices increase, so too does consumption. If that's the case, then either we haven't found the ceiling against which the consumption reacts in a "normal" way - imply that we would need a VERY high tax to curb consumption, or we can conclude that consumption is insensitive to price.

I am completely willing to lay aside my reservations about a CO2-temperature correlation for a moment, if someone knowledgeable about economics can make a cogent argument describing how a carbon tax (or one of the other variants) would effect temperature.

 

[ornerynorsk]

"Yes carbon is a problem. The matter is settled among the scientific community."

Hence the Michael Crichton quote in my previous post. "It's settled" = game over, I'm right, you're wrong, no talking.

"There are reams of science demonstrating the CO2 greenhouse effect."

I don't doubt there are reams of data, but I would question how scientific it is. Weren't 600+ weather stations just decommissioned for inaccurate readings? Hotter periods in earth's pre-industrial history?

Not trying to be a jerk, I just think a good dose of skepticism is healthy whatever the (controversial) subject may be. To reiterate my opinion, I think the jury is still out on much of the climatology research. In a field with such a vast array of variables, I believe we are decades away from meaningful understanding.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[SomptingGuy]

I just tried to find my Lomborg book, but I can't. Someone must have broken in and stolen it, wiped the place clean too.

- Steve

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the matter. I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with an ECS of between 0.8°C and 1°C per doubling. I think that science is pretty much agreed upon, no doubt. This can be experimentally-demonstrated.

But, that doesn't create catastrophe. You need to triple or quadruple that with positive feedbacks to get catastrophe. The magnitude (heck, even the sign) of the myriad of feedbacks is most definitely NOT settled and has virtually no consensus.

Throw in natural cycles, and will simply roll my eyes at you if you think that we (the scientific community) know what's going to happen in 50-100 years.

[rant]
BTW, carbon is not a problem. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Black carbon, when in the troposphere and stratosphere can decrease solar irradiance. Black carbon on snow melts it much quicker. Anyone who argues about carbon being a problem are being patronizingly and possibly deliberately vague. Carbon is not a problem. You mean to say that "carbon dioxide is a problem". Black carbon on snow may be a problem. Carbon in the form of graphite in pencils is not a problem. Crystallized carbon (diamonds) is not a problem, unless your spouse wants more than you can afford. Please keep your terminology accurate, precise, and relevant.
[/rant]

 

[2dye4]

Wow did I ask for it....

TGS4
The developing countries use far,far,far,........far less fossil fuel per capita. The tax would not effect them.
If the tax doesn't change consumption then I would have to say why all the opposition, after all the economy would have to go unscathed for this to be.
If the tax doesn't change consumption then let it generate enough money for the research that is needed to assist the problem.

""But, that doesn't create catastrophe. You need to triple or quadruple that with positive feedbacks to get catastrophe.""
No disrespect, but I really don't think you can support this claim.

Carbon becomes CO2 through oxidation and biological activity with only insignificant exceptions ( diamonds...etc ).

Ornerynorske
""Weren't 600+ weather stations just decommissioned for inaccurate readings?""
So was this date kept in the models uncorrected or not, big question, do you know the answer??

Skepticism is warranted sometimes for individual opinions, but one would be foolish to ignore the advice of 5 doctors who all told you the same thing is needed for your health.

 

[ornerynorsk]

2dye4, I do not know the answer to that. The event, or rather the discovery, was fairly recent, perhaps < 3 months if memory serves, so I doubt much of the data has been "re-crunched" yet.

Time will certainly tell. The one thing I am confident in, all skepticism aside, is that bad data and emotion will be eventually culled from the equation as real scientific discovery and understanding continues to progress.

Thanks for all of the input so far everyone!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[TGS4]

If the tax doesn't change consumption then I would have to say why all the opposition, after all the economy would have to go unscathed for this to be.
If the tax doesn't change consumption then let it generate enough money for the research that is needed to assist the problem.

Tell me please, what is the purpose of this tax? Is it to generate revenue? If so, then just say so, and don't make it a "save the planet" tax. If it doesn't change behaviour, then I can counter that "it's just a money grab".

Oh, yes you are correct that the developing countries create far less CO2 per capita than we do. But I wasn't talking about CO2 created by energy usage - I was talking about BREATHING.

No disrespect, but I really don't think you can support this claim.

Absolutely - sure can. Bear with me while I get some answers from you. What is the temperature threshold at which catastrophe will ensue? What is the current rate of increase in CO2 concentration?

 

[JJPellin]

Past excursions in temperature are pretty well understood. Increases in solar irradiance cause temperature increases which cause CO2 increases because of melting perma-frost and off-gassing of hotter ocean water. Periods of increase volcanic activity produce higher CO2 levels and increase temperatures because of the greenhouse effect. When the earth was covered with ice (snow ball earth), CO2 levels increased because the natural weathering removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by rain stopped. A forest is not the solution. Once it reaches equilibrium, it gives off as much CO2 from decomposition as it consumes. Human or animal breath is not the problem because that CO2 was removed from the air just a few months ago by the plants we ate. The CO2 increase comes from the burning of fossil fuels. If we do nothing to change that, we will not solve the problem. It may be true that the solution is impossible (practically or politically). But, it does not feel right to do nothing.

Johnny Pellin

 

[beej67]

The IPCC models are wrong.

Wrong.

They are proven false.

And not even a single one of those models showed how "carbon trading" or "carbon taxing" would change the warming trend they were predicting, even presuming that trend was in fact true and was 100% due to CO2.

If you presume that all of warming is due to CO2 (it's not) then the only way to stop global warming is to not to trade carbon at all, it's to eliminate it completely.

Never in my life have I heard anyone estimate how much less warming we'd have due to carbon trading. You'd think that piece of information would be a cornerstone of the Kyoto treaty or something, but it's not there. It was conveniently omitted. What's the supposed ROI of carbon trading even if warming is all due to carbon? Nobody knows.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[2dye4]

beej67

""The IPCC models are wrong.""
Elaborate??

""And not even a single one of those models showed how "carbon trading" or "carbon taxing" would change the warming trend they were predicting""

Climate models for CO2 forcing do not incorporate economic models.

""Never in my life have I heard anyone estimate how much less warming we'd have due to carbon trading.""

Well it would come down to TGS4s point about it reducing consumption. To the extend that the CO2 forcing models are correct then one could easily change the expected temperature based on reduced CO2 emission if the economic part were worked out.

Would you be happier with it if it were just a straight tax on carbon emissions???

"" What's the supposed ROI of carbon trading ""
What's the ROI of having ones cancer treated ???

It's not all about ROI, how about preserving a livable planet for our grandchildren.

 

[TGS4]

So, what is the price sensitivity of carbon-based energy whose oxidation creates the dread gas CO2?

 

[CajunCenturion]

""The IPCC models are wrong.""
Elaborate??

How about this interview with Hans von Storch:
Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[cranky108]

I see this is going no where.

And no one has said a thing about my tree credits.

 

[KENAT]

If it makes you happy cranky I'll give you credit for keeping trees, one of our 3 appears to have died.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[ornerynorsk]

Alright, it's settled then! Everyone (in the US anyway) file a schedule C with your taxes this coming year and claim depreciation on "organic cellulosic carbon sequestration vessels".

Basis of $5000 per and a 15 year write-down sound about right ???

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[cranky108]

Thanks.

This sounds the most fair thing for those of us use older carbon capture technology.

Also if garden consumes as much carbon as I breath, can I be exempt from the breathing tax?

 

[GregLocock]

Interesting article CC, thanks.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[beej67]

Elaborate??

Every single one of the IPCC models predicted increased warming, and increased rate of warming, over the last 15 years. Instead, temperatures have been flat over the last 15 years. No rise. All of them were wrong. All wrong.

And even if they were right, which they weren't, but even if they were, carbon trading wouldn't have mattered. If you believe the premise that global warming is only related to CO2, then the only way to stop it is to stop CO2 emissions. Entirely. Not trade them, not tax them, stop them. Entirely.

So even if the climate scientists were right and CO2 was the only boogy man, the carbon trading idea still doesn't work.

But it sure does make Goldman Sachs a lot of money.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[JJPellin]

It is not necessary to stop all CO2 emissions. Natural systems remove CO2. Emissions need to be reduced to a rate that these systems can keep up with.

Johnny Pellin

 

[GregLocock]

JPellin - true, but I worked out that all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750 pretty much matched the total fossil fuel usage since then, allowing for conversion from C (or CH2) to CO2. As coincidences go that is too big a one for me to swallow. The implication is that the natural part of the carbon cycle (ie CO2 to C fixing) doesn't appear to be even close to keeping pace with fossil fuel burning.

If this is true then the next steps are obvious - if you think CO2 is not a particularly large part of GW then you do nothing, if you think CO2 is the bogeyman then you issue heartrending messages and make poor countries poorer and make the finance people richer.

Incidentally I see that the next IPCC report has reduced its estimate for GW fom 0.2, to 0.12, and increased its confidence that AGW is responsible for 50% of that from 0.90 to 0.95. In other words they are much more confident that AGW is a smaller issue than they thought before. I don't suppose they'll be trumpeting that one from the rooftops.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?