The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science 77

[rconnor]

----------Introduction---------
A comparison of recent temperature trends in isolation of earlier data, say 1998-present, to long(er)-term temperature trends, say 1970-present, reveals that more recent temperature trends are lower than long-term temperature trends. This has led many, including many prominent climate scientists, to refer to the recent period as a “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown”. While in isolation of any other context besides two temperature trends, the term “pause” or “hiatus” may be quasi-accurate, much more context is required to determine whether these terms are statistically and, more importantly, physically accurate.

It should be noted that most times when these terms are used by climate scientists, they keep the quotation marks to indicate the mention-form of the word and are not implying an actual physical pause or hiatus in climate change. The subsequent research into the physical mechanism behind the “pause” has continually demonstrated that it is not indicative of a pause in climate change nor does it suggest a drastic reduction in our estimates of climate sensitivity. However, this fact appears to be lost on many who see the “pause” as some kind of death-blow to the anthropogenic climate change theory or to the relevancy of climate change models.

While this subject has been discussed repeatedly in these forums, it has never been the focus but rather used as a jet-pack style argument to change the conversation from the subject at hand to the “pause” (“Well that can’t be right because the Earth hasn’t warmed in X years!”). Revisiting past threads, I cannot find an example of where someone attempted to defend the “pause” as a valid argument against anthropogenic climate change. It is brought up, debunked and then not defended (and then gets brought up again 5 posts later). The hope is to discuss the scientific literature surrounding the “pause” to help readers understand why the “pause” is simply not a valid argument. While some points have been discussed (usually by me) before, this post does contain new research as well as 2014 and 2015 temperature data, which shed even more light on the topic. The post will be split into three parts: 1) the introduction (and a brief discussion on satellite versus surface station temperature data sets), 2) Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2? and 3) Does the “pause” suggest that climate models are deeply flawed?

------Why I Will Be Using Ground-Based Temperature Data Sets-------
Prior to going into the meat of the discussion, I feel it necessary to discuss why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and not satellite data sets. Perhaps one of the most hypocritical and confused (or purposefully misleading) arguments on many “skeptic” blogs is the disdain for all ground-based temperature data sets and the promotion of satellite temperature data sets. The main contention with ground-based temperature data sets is that they do not include raw data and require homogenization techniques to produce their end result. While I am not here (in this thread) to discuss the validity of such techniques, it is crucial to understand that satellite temperature data sets go through a much more involved and complex set of calculations, adjustments and homogenizations to get from their raw data to their end product. Both what they measure and where they measure it are very important and highlights the deep confusion (or purposeful misdirection) of “skeptic” arguments that ground-based temperatures are rubbish and satellite-based temperatures are “better”.

[ul][li]Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.[/li]
[li]Satellite record is constructed from a series of satellites, meaning the data is not fully homogeneous (Christy et al, 1998). Various homogenization techniques are required to create the record. (RSS information)[/li]
[li]Satellites have to infer the temperature at various altitudes by attempting to mathematically remove the influence of other layers and other interference (RSS information). This is a very difficult thing to do and the methods have gone through multiple challenges and revisions. (Mears and Wentz 2005, Mears et al 2011, Fu et al 2004)[/li]
[li]Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. The closest to “surface” temperatures they get are TLT which is an loose combination of the atmosphere centered roughly around 5 km. It is also not even a direct measurement channel (which themselves are not measuring temperature directly) but a mathematically adjustment of other channels. Furthermore, due to the amount of adjustments involved, TLT has constantly required revisions to correct errors and biases (Christy et al 1998, Fu et al 2005).[/li]
[li]See the discussion on Satellite data sets in IPCC Report (section 3.4.1.2)[/li]
[li]Satellite data and the large amount of homogenization and adjustments required to turn the raw data into useful temperature data are still being question to this day. Unlike ground-based adjustments which lead to trivial changes in trends (from the infamous Karl et al 2015), recent research shows that corrections of perhaps 30% are required for satellite data (Weng et al 2013 .[/li][/ul]

None of this is meant to say the satellite temperature data is “wrong” but it very clearly highlights the deep-set confusion in the “skeptic” camp about temperature data sets. If one finds themselves dismissing ground-based temperature data sets because they require homogenization or adjustments while claiming satellite temperature data sets are superior have simply been lead astray by “skeptics” or are trying to lead others astray. Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates that any attempt to compare satellite data (which measures the troposphere) to the surface temperature output of models is completely misguided (*cough*John Christy *cough*). It is for these reasons that I will use ground-based data in the rest of the post.

Again, I would like to state that I do not wish this to be a focal point of this discussion. I am merely outline why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and my justification for that as, undoubtedly, someone would claim I should be using satellite temperature datasets. In fact, I appear to be in pretty good company; Carl Mears, one of the chief researchers of RSS (and the same Mears from all the papers above), stated:

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset

If this is a topic of interest to people, perhaps starting your own thread would be advisable as I will not be responding to comments on temperature data sets on this thread. Now, onto the actual discussion…

 

[ornerynorsk]

. . . as he slams his fist on the pulpit, admonishing adherents and apostates alike that these times call for a more fervent faith. A faith that demands action and personal sacrifice. "Destruction is nigh", his voice rings through the great hall. What has been accomplished by the great world body is very necessary, but yet so very little. There simply is no alternative, these facts would be clear to a blind man. The pleading, but ever more demanding dictum continues, building like the surf before a storm. Now he grows wild-eyed and charismatic. The speech comes forth polished and effortless, as if it is his very soul being revealed to the audience. With such conviction, how could he be wrong? All of the evidence, the reasoning . . . why, he's such a learned man, and it all sounds so convincing. He allows several moments for the captivated throng to breathe, to fully absorb their fate should his words not be heeded. A sudden breeze wafts through the tent as the righteous amongst the congregation posture forward so as not to lose a single syllable of these precious words. Somewhere in the crowd a wicked detractor mutters "fools", only halfway beneath his breath. He's not even noticed, except by the few close to him, and quickly dismissed with scornful glances down their noses. . . .

Religion, rconnor, religion.

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.

 

[rconnor]

Do you have any idea as to why the popular media doesn't latch onto energy accumulation

Good question. There are some that promote the idea that OHC should be the main metric to represent climate change and 2 deg C is a poor target. However, I’ve also heard some decent arguments on why that isn’t a good idea.

I suppose those talk more about the aspect of policy targets and your question is more on just as a metric to discuss climate change but having a metric that reflects policy targets is important. Neither OHC nor global temperature are immediately intuitive, both require some supplemental explanation. More importantly, neither, on their own, tell the whole story. No single metric does.

Is OHC a more representative illustration of the energy imbalance that drives climate change than temperature? Yes and it is a slightly smoother signal to answer the question, “have we been accruing energy”. But it’s not complete and I’d argue it’s slightly less intuitive to the layman and more difficult to connect to future climate change impacts than temperature. My position is use whatever metric you want, so long as you’re not misrepresenting the bigger picture.

“Skeptic” sources will (and can) use any metric selectively and dishonestly to misrepresent the bigger picture. An example on these forums is beej67 using North Atlantic (60-0W, 30-65N) surface (0-700m) heat content to counter act my claim that global OHC has continued to rise throughout the “pause”, here at 8 May 14 14:28, my reply at 8 May 14 15:20. Note that a cooling North Atlantic is, in fact, consistent with the science. So not only was it an attempt to dishonestly spin a metric to misrepresent the big picture but even the dishonest spin doesn’t actually work against the big picture. So wrong, it’s not even wrong.

 

[rconnor]

Religion, rconnor, religion.

You are accusing me of dogmatic support of a position regardless of facts or evidence (seemingly based on some delusional fantasy story you made up). You seem to forget that it's not just my opinion but the reflection of the scientific evidence.

In reality, I have facts and scientific evidence to support my position and have repeatedly presented, explained and defended them. While you have stated an unsupported belief in some global conspiracy based on a zealous support of the free-market to support your position, despite all the facts and evidence to the contrary.

One of those sounds like religious belief.

I asked “if climate science is so obviously wrong, where is the scientific explanation on why it’s wrong?” If you have facts or scientific evidence to support your position, let’s discuss them. Thus far, it’s been notably absent from your comments.

Frankly, your complaining about the rhetoric of the climate change debate, while completely ignoring any conversation on the science and spewing your own rhetoric, is a bit tiresome to say the least. You want to have a non-ideological based conversation on climate change – then let’s talk science (which is what I’ve done since day one). Otherwise, you’re part of the problem.

 

[ornerynorsk]

"In reality, I have facts"

No, you don't. You have suppositions and hypothesis. And I'm in the same boat, I have no facts to support my position. What I do have is clarity of how often the population-at-large is punished by government excess, be it policies or taxation. Distrust based on previous experience. Anthropomorphic causation has not been proven corrollary to warming. It just hasn't.

Yes, this is all a bit tiresome. I rather doubt either of us will change our belief based on the striving or the affirmations of the other, so I will happily digress and leave the conversation to others who are more suited to discussing the brass tacks of, ahem, science.

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.

 

[rconnor]

I don't have facts or evidence? None? You see those dark blue, underlined words scattered throughout my posts (there's probably well over 200 of them in this thread alone) - try clicking them and reading the information that comes up. Or is every scientific institution and journal fraudulent?

Let's be clear on something - just because you refuse to acknowledge the science surrounding climate change and, instead, project your zealous ideological views onto the topic does not mean that others do. Climate change is a scientific issue that should be (and is) discussed scientifically. The only people that complain about climate science being a political issue are the ones that refuse to discuss the issue scientifically but, instead, project political ideology onto everything (you can see a few examples besides yourself in this thread).

I'll ask you this question ornerynorsk and please, answer directly - which of the following is more reasonable:

(A) Nearly every climate scientist, scientific institution, university and major scientific journal have, through pressure from every government from around the world, contrived an environmental crisis by faking data and publishing fraudulent papers for well over 50 years, which they will mutually benefit from at the cost of the people, despite the billion (if not trillion) dollar interest from corporations and governments (including those involved in the conspiracy) to expose this scam.

or

(B) Your ideology has blinded you from being able to examine this issue honestly.

 

[jhardy1]

@ornerynorsk:
Anthropomorphic causation has not been proven corrollary to warming. It just hasn't.

I assume therefore that you would also subscribe to some (or all) of the following claims:

Smoking has not been conclusively linked to lung cancer. It just hasn't.
Evolution by natural selection hasn't been proven. It just hasn't.
Pi has not been proven to be irrational. It just hasn't.
The Earth has not been proven to be a globe. It just hasn't.
The universe hasn't been proven to be 13.8 billion years old. It just hasn't.
</sarcasm>

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[IRstuff]

"What I do have is clarity of how often the population-at-large is punished by government excess, be it policies or taxation. Distrust based on previous experience. Anthropomorphic causation has not been proven corrollary to warming. It just hasn't.

You are obviously conflating two separate things; one of which is clearly a hot-button issue for you. While it's true that governments are not often acting in everyone's best interest, even you seemed to agree that seat belt laws benefited people. Just because governments support carbon reduction does not make it a bad thing; guilt by association does not apply here. Many laws currently perceived as ill-conceived had beneficial intents, but those intents are often subverted by people willing and able to warp things to their own advantage.


TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[ornerynorsk]

First of all, it should have been anthropogenic, my mistake. I work with anthropomorphic daily.

2. rconnor - Really? those are the only 2 choices? I've said my piece, you know my position, there's no point for further discussion on it. Apparently being incorrigible, stubborn, and unwilling to consider other's ideas is only bad if one is on the unpopular side of the argument. That's healthy, isn't it?
3. jhardy1 - not even worth a response. Oh, and the 13.8 billion years, give it another decade or two, it will change again. Yet another issue that apparently the "science" is not settled.
4. IRstuff - Carbon reduction. I've never said it's a bad idea. Cap and trade, however, is a horrible idea. The sale of indulgences. Now here is a business model that's proven to be stellar (yes, sarcasm). "We know it's bad for you, but maybe if you're willing to pay, it will not be so bad". Glorious. Perhaps we should put the large religious organization that has had prior experience in this area in charge of climate control? Then we can have guilt and self-righteousness come into play, as well. Wouldn't that be fun?

If the science is showing carbon to potentially be lethal, cap it. Not cap and trade, just cap. Begin reducing the supply. Let innovation mitigate the inevitable short-term rise in price and demand for fossil fuels. Let the market dictate the solutions in absentia of carbon fuels. Cap and trade is just going to propagate the rise of a new class of evil capitalist, is it not?

Seatbelts are a terrible comparison for the warming issue, but since IRstuff wants to harp on this, let's ponder the seat belt issue for just a moment. In a free society, should people be allowed to make mistakes, even if said mistake could cost them their life? Don't you all like a little paradox with your coffee to get the day going? I think seat belts are a splendid idea. I don't drive 2 blocks without one, even though many cars did not even have seat belts in my formative years. Should they be mandated? I believe they should until age 18, the age of consent and legal adulthood. The notion of government overlords dictating every facet of adult life and keeping us poor minions "safe" is a very warm and comforting idea to many of you. But really, for the state to financially penalize every misstep, every infraction of what it deems is righteous, is beyond asinine. It is the erosion (and eventual collapse) of any free society. Live life on your knees if you so desire. You do what's best for you, but don't make all of us attend your party by force of the state.

Really folks, the herd mentality is starting to rot some of your brains.



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.

 

[testing]

If the science is showing carbon to potentially be lethal, cap it. Not cap and trade, just cap. Begin reducing the supply. Let innovation mitigate the inevitable short-term rise in price and demand for fossil fuels. Let the market dictate the solutions in absentia of carbon fuels. Cap and trade is just going to propagate the rise of a new class of evil capitalist, is it not?

Could you elaborate? I don't see how a simple cap is that much different from cap and trade? I may not be familiar enough, but in both cases, total emissions would be capped. In the cap and trade scenario, it would benefit those companies that innovate by allowing them to sell their excess cap to the companies that are less innovative.

 

[JNieman]

Not knowing the difference between anthropogenic and anthropomorphic is what a detective would call "a clue".

 

[rconnor]

Ornerynorsk, I am not unwilling to considers others ideas, I have repeatedly said that I would fully welcome someone that said “while I have reservations about government intervention, I accept the science that states we need mitigation measures.” I am also willing to discuss the scientific issues surrounding climate science (but ideas that are scientifically unsupported, I need not agree with). However, I am unwilling to consider the idea that you can, with a wave of your hand, throw out all the science behind climate change because you don’t like it and then proceed to conclude that because, according to your hand waving, the science is junk that mitigation measures are not required. You, unfortunately, have done the latter.

You don’t like the conclusions, so you decide that the science must be wrong. Rather, the discussion must be that we discuss the science to see if the conclusions make sense. You have inverted the discussion and made it impossible to discuss rationally.

Regarding the two choices, it’s the two choices you’ve back yourself into. You’ve decided you don’t want to discuss a scientific issue by discussing the science (it’s as ridiculous as it sounds). If you want to avoid discussing the science because it’s all rubbish then you agree with option (A). If you want to avoid discussing the science because your ideology tells you not to, then you agree with option (B). There is an option (C), “you don’t want to discuss the science but nevertheless agree with it, so let’s move on to how to tackle climate change”. But your blind rejection of the science pulls that off the table.

Now, finally, you have started discussing various measures. You mention cap-and-trade as a measure you don’t like. You also mention to “just cap it”. But isn’t the trade element what free-market enthusiasts like about cap-and-trade (and why it’s considered a free-market solution to climate change) because, as zwtipp05 rightly pointed out, it promotes and rewards ingenuity? Beyond that how and why is cap-and-trade not appealing to a free-market enthusiasts but just a plain cap is?

All this being said, I’m not a huge fan of cap-and-trade. I push for a revenue neutral tax program such as in British Columbia. Here the reward on ingenuity is inherent (you pay less of the tax), which eliminates the need for a costly and complicated trading program. It also sends the signal that CO2 emissions aren’t just costly over some arbitrary limit, every ton of CO2 is. To stay below 2 deg C, we need to go net zero as soon as possible, not reduce to some cap level. Furthermore, the money goes back into the community through supporting low-income families and other tax breaks. Some say, “a tax to fund tax breaks is silly” but it misses the point – tax a behavior you as a society want to discourage but not outright ban (i.e. carbon emissions, alcohol or smoking) and reinvest that money back into the community.

However, a revenue neutral tax program, a simple cap or cap-and-trade are, alone, not enough. We cannot meet the Paris Agreement target without substantial change to energy production and transportation. Basically, we need a fully (or darn near fully) renewable energy supply (and I’m not 100% opposed to nuclear being a part of that) first and then a transition to fully electric transportation. I say this being fully aware of the technical, societal and economic impracticality that this will happen by 2050. This is why I’ve always been pessimistic about the 2 deg C target – I don’t think it’s doable…without significant technologic, social and political change. Perhaps Paris is a sign that change is coming, perhaps its more empty promises. Frankly, I sit somewhere in between. (Either way, it’s a wakeup call to “skeptics” that their little silos of doubt that they hang out in aren’t nearly as well supported or prescribed to as they believe)

Regardless, what the fact that a 2 deg C limit is incredibly difficult to meet means to me is we need to start doing as much as practical possible as soon as practical possible. A revenue neutral tax program seems like a no brainer in the short term. More stringent building energy codes seems like a no brainer in the short term. Heavy investment in “low-hanging fruit” renewable energy production (i.e. renewable where and to the extent it is practical) in the short term. These measures will put a serious dent into our emissions. Hopefully it will give the technology, society and politics the time to develop to the level where long-term zero net emissions is possible.

If we overshoot 2 deg C at least we start limiting the upper-end. The damages of climate change are not a simple on/off point (although there might be some really bad tipping points above the 5 deg C mark), it’s a sliding scale. We are already locked in to the lower end of the damage spectrum, we just need to decide how much further we travel.

 

[ornerynorsk]

Jumping on a molehill of a simple typo and proclaiming it a mountain of ignorance is what said detective would refer to as "childish and contentious". But then, I find myself doing the same from time-to-time, so, well played.

zwtipp05, very true, in a cap and trade scenario there could be financial windfall, and therefore incentive to improve efficiencies and reduce consumption. What is more likely to happen, and I've read discussions on several variations of this theme, is that a clearinghouse or agency would be set up to monitor and regulate the market, much like the function of the SEC, which would require the inclusion of large banks or financial institutions to handle the monetary aspect of the transactions. Of course, transaction fees are a natural part of this scenario, as are penalties and fines for improper or untimely filing and reporting. More importantly, how is valuation determined? Will it be fixed by a governing body, or allowed free range on the open market? More bureaucracy.



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.

 

[Maui]

Let's take a closer look at how our government chooses to handle problems. Here's an independent case that serves as an example of how our government intends to correct a different issue that has been repeatedly discussed in the media recently. Those of us who fly radio controlled vehicles responsibly can thank a small number of imbeciles who have been flying their drones in restricted airspace for this. A new government mandate will be implemented on December 21st of this year that impacts everybody who flies these types of aircraft:

[bold]AMA (American Modelers Association) and the FAA Registration Process[/bold]

Today (December 14, 2015) the FAA announced plans for a model aircraft registration process to begin next week. AMA was a member of the task force that helped develop recommendations for this registration rule and argued throughout the process that registration makes sense at some level but only for those operating outside the guidance of a community-based organization or flying for commercial purposes.

Unfortunately, the new FAA registration rule does not include our advice. The rule is counter to Congress's intent in the Special Rule for Model Aircraft and makes the registration process an unnecessary burden for all of our members who have been operating safely for decades.

While we are disappointed with the new registration rule and still maintain that AMA members should be exempt from registration, the rule is being implemented over AMA objections. Therefore, we want to provide you with important information about the registration rule and how AMA members can comply with the new federal requirements:

• All aircraft that are flown using a ground control system, such as a transmitter, are required to participate. This includes fixed-wing aircraft, not just multirotors or drones.
• Any pilot flying models weighing between .55 pounds (or 250 grams) and 55 lbs is required to register.
• You will not be required to register every aircraft individually. You only need to register yourself and can affix one registration number to all your aircraft.
• You must mark all aircraft with your registration number. The number can be inside the aircraft, such as a battery hatch - but should not require tools to access.
• The FAA plans to launch the online registration website on Monday, December 21.
• There is a $5 fee to register, which is waived if you register within the first 30 days.
• You only need to register once every 3 years.
We are still working out the logistics for this process. Some details are still being discussed, including:
• We are seriously discussing with the FAA a system where your AMA number could be used as your federal registration number as well. At this point, this is only a proposal and details are not yet finalized.
• At this time, AMA members will not automatically be registered when the registration website launches next week. However, we are in conversations with the FAA about the best way to streamline the registration process for AMA members going forward.
This is an ongoing process and we will continue to provide updates on the registration rule. Stay tuned to modelaircraft.org/gov, social media and your email for the latest news on the registration process.

Thank you,
AMA Government Relations and Advocacy Team

© 1936-2014 Academy of Model Aeronautics.
5161 E. Memorial Dr., Muncie IN 47302
Tel.: (800) 435-9262; Fax.: (765) 289-4248
All rights reserved.

http://www.modelaircraft.org

Those of us who have been flying these aircraft for decades without incident are suddenly being subjected to government scrutiny and have to register our aircraft. Why? Because when the cops get their hands on one of these drones there isn't an easy way for them to trace it back to the original owner. By registering the vehicle they will have a much easier time doing this. So in this case you have a few idiots who have been creating potential problems (note that no aircraft crashes have been caused by the flying of these drones yet) and [italic]everybody else[/italic] ends up being affected. Do they really think that the people who are responsible for creating these problems will actually register their aircraft? Really? Will this strategy solve the problem? [italic][bold]NO![/italic][/bold]

We have people in government who are more than happy to implement new regulations, requirements, policies, etc. But these same people rarely take a look back in the past to determine how well (or how poorly) their policies actually worked. I have a very skeptical outlook regarding government intervention in the AGW debate for this reason.

Maui

 

[rb1957]

it is often the case ... a few idiots messing it up for the masses of sensible users.

and i agree with ornerynorsk,
if burning FFs is the worst thing since sliced bread and
if we continue to do so the science shows that this will doom our civilisation within a relatively short time,
then the logical course of action is to stop burning FFs ... stop mining them, boycott (similar to North Korea) countries that continue, at a minimum charge $10/lt for gas, ...

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[snarkysparky]

Maui
Registration is likely to help. Most will be more conscious of where they are flying with registration numbers on their craft. Of course there must be penalties for flying craft without registration.

But if you define solving the problem as the elimination of all future incidents then no it won't do so. What would short of a total ban. Any better ideas?

Everybody loves to gripe about the government and when they find an example to support their view we all hear about it as though it was the whole truth. If you don't like what the government does get involved and engage in politics.

Considering any large societal problem involving the common space and individual actions. What else but government is there when individual behavior must be controlled for the common good.

This type of thinking is why I am skeptical of any intervention in the global warming crisis.

Ornerynorske: Who but government can set a cost for individual action that damages everyone equally with only the actor reaping the profit.

 

[Maui]

Snarky, the vast majority of RC pilots are responsible people who are very conscious of where they are flying already. They know how dangerous these aircraft can be, and take reasonable steps to safeguard themselves and the people around them. The small number of bad apples that have been discussed in the media will not register their aircraft for the very same reason that they fly in restricted airspace - they are irresponsible people. And they would fear getting caught if their name was attached to a registration number. So the people who are not causing the problem will be the ones to register their aircraft, while the bad apples who are causing the problem will not. This is why registration [italic]will not help[/italic]. The AMA is an organization that represents model aircraft enthusiasts, and the excerpt that appeared in my prior post was taken directly from them. They are my representatives in these matters, and they attempted to work with the government to develop a plan that would institute positive change. But they got shot down. Positive change did not take place. They were overruled by a group of clueless representatives who apparently feel a compulsion to take action, no matter how ineffective, in an attempt to show that they are doing something to address the problem. Morons.

Maui

 

[JJPellin]

Cap and trade is not some untested, risky, possible future system for reducing emissions. We have had a cap and trade system in operation since 1990. It was implemented under George H. W. Bush as the free-market alternative to simple government regulatory limits on emissions. The existing system has been very successful at reducing the emissions associated with acid rain. There is no great regulatory burden. Caps are set and are ratcheted down over time. The emitters freely trade credits among themselves with prices set by the marketplace. We are talking about expanding an existing and very successful system to include C02. This is not something new. I have included a link describing the history of cap and trade and the success of this system. The very fact that most of you don't seem to know that this exists demonstrates that it is working.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/air/the-political-history-of-cap-and-trade-34711212/?no-ist

Johnny Pellin

 

[ornerynorsk]

JJPellin, that's good to know. Thanks for the info!

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.

 

[rconnor]

Who but government can set a cost for individual action that damages everyone equally with only the actor reaping the profit.

Bingo.

The response will be, “the free-market can” but I don’t think free-market enthusiasts even understand what that means. The reality of our world is most consumers are driven by searching for the lowest cost option (or, sometimes, best "value" but even that doesn't consider externalities) and all corporations are driven by maximizing profits. Regulations are required to limit exploitation to achieve those goals. In absence of regulations, we see abuses of exploitive actions or externalizing costs/risks and privatizing profits (ex. deregulation of the California energy market, deregulation of financial institutions). But somehow, under the idealized free-market the utter lack of regulations will make the consumer perfectly aware of externalities and make their decisions, and subsequently the producers’ decisions, perfectly ethical and for the greater good. This is, to me, wishful thinking.

Cap and trade is not some untested, risky, possible future system for reducing emissions.

I agree (and I am aware, see my comment at 8 Dec 15 22:34 – in fact, I was going to link that exact article but got lazy). However, I still feel revenue neutral carbon tax is a better way to go, for the reasons I described above. Nevertheless, you bring up an important point.

then the logical course of action is to stop burning FFs ... stop mining them, boycott (similar to North Korea) countries that continue, at a minimum charge $10/lt for gas, ...

That’s the high level idea. But you cannot just enact a unilateral ban on fossil fuel consumption tomorrow. We need solutions on how to transition to that point and make sure that transition is fast enough to prevent the worst of the damages but is still technologically, socially, politically and economically possible.

 

[IRstuff]

"Those of us who have been flying these aircraft for decades without incident are suddenly being subjected to government scrutiny and have to register our aircraft. Why? "

The same situation will probably apply to Muslims if certain parties become President. If there are further incidents, I would not be surprised if Manzanar-style internment camps will be proposed. The US seems to never learn from its past. The Chinese Exclusion Act has never been ruled unconstitutional, and may likewise raise its ugly head with "Muslim" replacing "Chinese" in the wording.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529