Poll

Should I lock this thread?

Yes, Lock it!  It's a sesspit!
2 (40%)
No, I'm entralled in the "debate"!
1 (20%)
Whatever, I'm just here for the show.
2 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Voting closed: March 07, 2016, 01:37:11 PM

Author Topic: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread  (Read 87499 times)

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 709
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #200 on: January 25, 2016, 06:07:00 PM »
Actually, I don't; but I'm trying to start somewhere. I have to have a set of givens that we can base the discussion upon.  If you think this given is flawed, then we can discuss that in particular.
I don't know if the given is flawed.  I was simply curious as to your seeming acceptance of it.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #201 on: January 25, 2016, 06:11:47 PM »

1) 2015 was the hottest year on record, right?  So have we already experienced a 3 C rise above our climate baseline?  If not, why not? If yes, is this really an issue so far?

MoonShadow - I'm glad to see you've returned. I actually enjoy discussions so long as they stay discussions and not devolve into nastiness.  I will do my best to keep it that way; we may disagree at times, but we can still learn why the other thinks the way they do.

To answer your question above - it depends a lot on what exactly we are considering our "climate baseline" to be for this particular discussion and what we consider an acceptable time frame.  As a convienent example, consider the stock market.  If you just looked at the last five years we could say that the market basically always goes up.  If you looked at the last 10 years.... different story.  Last 100 years different still. In other words, the single year volatility is very important.  Getting back to climate, if you are asking about short-lived events like el nino or hurricane activity, then 1-2 year time frames are great.  If you want to know about ice sheets and glaciers, than looking at 10 or even 25 year periods are more appropriate.

Which segways into your question about whether we've already experienced a 3ºC rise.  In short - if we accept that the last 10 years have had some of the hottest years on records (and I do... others may argue) - we still haven't experienced all of its effects.  Broadly speaking, heat travels from the equator to the poles.  It's this massive transfer of heat that literally creates wind and currents, as heat 'moves' (in the form of changing densities) from one place to another.  The key is that it can take years for heat to move from the equator into the arctic and return. Deep sea circulation takes even longer - on the scale of decades).  So while 2015 was the hottest year on record, the arctic hasn't had sufficient time to 'react'. 

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #202 on: January 25, 2016, 07:14:16 PM »

1) 2015 was the hottest year on record, right?  So have we already experienced a 3 C rise above our climate baseline?  If not, why not? If yes, is this really an issue so far?

MoonShadow - I'm glad to see you've returned. I actually enjoy discussions so long as they stay discussions and not devolve into nastiness.  I will do my best to keep it that way; we may disagree at times, but we can still learn why the other thinks the way they do.


Excellent, that is my goal here.

Quote
To answer your question above - it depends a lot on what exactly we are considering our "climate baseline" to be for this particular discussion and what we consider an acceptable time frame.  As a convienent example, consider the stock market.  If you just looked at the last five years we could say that the market basically always goes up.  If you looked at the last 10 years.... different story.  Last 100 years different still. In other words, the single year volatility is very important.  Getting back to climate, if you are asking about short-lived events like el nino or hurricane activity, then 1-2 year time frames are great.  If you want to know about ice sheets and glaciers, than looking at 10 or even 25 year periods are more appropriate.

Which segways into your question about whether we've already experienced a 3ºC rise.  In short - if we accept that the last 10 years have had some of the hottest years on records (and I do... others may argue) - we still haven't experienced all of its effects.  Broadly speaking, heat travels from the equator to the poles.  It's this massive transfer of heat that literally creates wind and currents, as heat 'moves' (in the form of changing densities) from one place to another.  The key is that it can take years for heat to move from the equator into the arctic and return. Deep sea circulation takes even longer - on the scale of decades).  So while 2015 was the hottest year on record, the arctic hasn't had sufficient time to 'react'.

Well, I think I need a more precise answer.  As in, how much above our baseline has the climate already warmed up, and how much of that can we reasonably assume (as in, do we have evidence) is due to increases in CO2 rather than some other cause, or natural variations?  Does that answer exist? I don't know, but I think it's a fair question to expect a precise, and supportable, answer to before we can even talk about the future potential of harm (or gains) from AGW.

On a side note, I recently saw a video describing a series of ancient (and otherwise extinct) viri that have been discovered in thawing glaciers, and they have all been found to be viable.  That scares the hell out of me much more than the idea of rising seas or changing wind patterns.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #203 on: January 25, 2016, 07:21:35 PM »
As in, how much above our baseline has the climate already warmed up, and how much of that can we reasonably assume (as in, do we have evidence) is due to increases in CO2 rather than some other cause, or natural variations?  Does that answer exist? I don't know,

I have previously provided you the following link, which answers these exact questions with pretty animated graphs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Since you apparently didn't read it last time, I'm not sure that offering it to you again will make much difference.

the_gastropod

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
  • Age: 37
  • Location: RVA
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #204 on: January 25, 2016, 07:47:24 PM »
Well, I think I need a more precise answer.  As in, how much above our baseline has the climate already warmed up, and how much of that can we reasonably assume (as in, do we have evidence) is due to increases in CO2 rather than some other cause, or natural variations?

Since 1884, Earth has warmed by about 0.8 degrees Celsius. About 66% of this warming has taken place since 1975, and the trend seems to be accelerating.[1] The IPCC AR5 reports unequivocally demonstrate that this warming is due to human activity.

Regarding your question about whether the Earth should have warmed 3 degrees Celsius since the Industrial Revolution: no. CO2 concentrations have not doubled since the Industrial Revolution. Further, we don't have accurate global measurements of temperatures prior to 1884. CO2 concentration was ~260ppm during the Industrial Revolution. Today, it's 402ppm. That's about a 54% increase.


[1] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #205 on: January 25, 2016, 08:09:01 PM »
As in, how much above our baseline has the climate already warmed up, and how much of that can we reasonably assume (as in, do we have evidence) is due to increases in CO2 rather than some other cause, or natural variations?  Does that answer exist? I don't know,

I have previously provided you the following link, which answers these exact questions with pretty animated graphs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Since you apparently didn't read it last time, I'm not sure that offering it to you again will make much difference.

I did spend some time following that link this time, so taking that site at face value, the other (known) factors are a net reduction on temps by about a quarter degree F, with a net increase of about 1.6 (or so) degrees F.  I do have some issues with the graph data itself; such as the very small baseline period (1880 to 1910, so 30 years) and the lack of a comparable unit in the graphs.  Looking further into the methodology of the site, I found out that a particular model was used (ModelE2) and I went looking for data on that model specifically.  I discovered a paper that attempts to use the model to run simulations upon the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, and I found it rather telling that the most modern & accurate model available still had to have it's input data corrected to match the proxy data...

Quote
High latitude amplification of the sea surface temperature
anomaly  is  asymmetrical,  with  more  than  twice  as  much
warming  in  the  Northern  Hemisphere  (+4.5◦C)  as  in  the
Southern Hemisphere (+2.2◦C) in GMCORR. The peak of
the zonal average SST falls at 65◦N, at the high end of the
range of PlioMIP models, and slightly exceeds the PRISM3D
data for that latitude. Sea surface temperatures in GMCORRare up to 9◦C warmer in the North Atlantic than in the un-corrected  model  at  their  peak (Fig.  2);  in  fact,  zonal  aver-age  SSTs  in  the  corrected  model  are  warmer  than  at  any
other location. In contrast, at similar latitudes the peak SST
Zonal average anomalies of surface air temperature (in blue)
and sea surface temperature (in red). The simulated high-latitude
amplification of surface air temperature and the peak SSTs around65◦N are more similar to proxy data than those produced by the earlier GM
UNCOR version of the GISS ModelE2-R, but tropical
temperature anomalies in both versions are still slightly higher than
data interpretations for the mid-Pliocene
.

The logic, I presume, of backdating models to this time period is that CO2 levels averaged about 405 PPM, providing for a rather ideal time period to backtest models against.  On net, however, I'd say that this model supports my premise that climate change may yet prove to be a net boon for humanity. 

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #206 on: January 25, 2016, 08:24:05 PM »
As in, how much above our baseline has the climate already warmed up, and how much of that can we reasonably assume (as in, do we have evidence) is due to increases in CO2 rather than some other cause, or natural variations?  Does that answer exist? I don't know,

I have previously provided you the following link, which answers these exact questions with pretty animated graphs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Since you apparently didn't read it last time, I'm not sure that offering it to you again will make much difference.

I did spend some time following that link this time, so taking that site at face value, the other (known) factors are a net reduction on temps by about a quarter degree F, with a net increase of about 1.6 (or so) degrees F.  I do have some issues with the graph data itself; such as the very small baseline period (1880 to 1910, so 30 years) and the lack of a comparable unit in the graphs.  Looking further into the methodology of the site, I found out that a particular model was used (ModelE2) and I went looking for data on that model specifically.  I discovered a paper that attempts to use the model to run simulations upon the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, and I found it rather telling that the most modern & accurate model available still had to have it's input data corrected to match the proxy data...

Quote
High latitude amplification of the sea surface temperature
anomaly  is  asymmetrical,  with  more  than  twice  as  much
warming  in  the  Northern  Hemisphere  (+4.5◦C)  as  in  the
Southern Hemisphere (+2.2◦C) in GMCORR. The peak of
the zonal average SST falls at 65◦N, at the high end of the
range of PlioMIP models, and slightly exceeds the PRISM3D
data for that latitude. Sea surface temperatures in GMCORRare up to 9◦C warmer in the North Atlantic than in the un-corrected  model  at  their  peak (Fig.  2);  in  fact,  zonal  aver-age  SSTs  in  the  corrected  model  are  warmer  than  at  any
other location. In contrast, at similar latitudes the peak SST
Zonal average anomalies of surface air temperature (in blue)
and sea surface temperature (in red). The simulated high-latitude
amplification of surface air temperature and the peak SSTs around65◦N are more similar to proxy data than those produced by the earlier GM
UNCOR version of the GISS ModelE2-R, but tropical
temperature anomalies in both versions are still slightly higher than
data interpretations for the mid-Pliocene
.

The logic, I presume, of backdating models to this time period is that CO2 levels averaged about 405 PPM, providing for a rather ideal time period to backtest models against.  On net, however, I'd say that this model supports my premise that climate change may yet prove to be a net boon for humanity.

Here's the full paper Moonshadow quotes the abstract of above.
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/6/517/2013/gmd-6-517-2013.pdf

But, there remains a question of if climate change will be a net boon for humanity. Returning to my native Washington, one of the big impacts associated with warming is a rise in the snow line, which reduces the April 1 snowpack. April 1 snowpack is a widely used metric of water available for irrigation, and is a significant factor in agriculture in the state. Farmers watch the snowpack closely because it more or less controls their water allotment. Lower snowpack means less water in August when their crops are thirsty. Add to that an earlier onset of spring and they are a few weeks further into the summer at that point. This effect puts significant pressure on agriculture, none of which is beneficial. Similar patterns are associated with increased fire risk, and projections indicate many more square miles of western forests will burn as a result of summer conditions resulting from climate change. Again, no upside there. Low summer instream flows can also result in increased stream temperatures threatening salmon populations and the fishing industries that rely on them.

If we reduce it to how it will affect me, this it what it looks like: strain on the agricultural sector output and economy, increased wildfire impacts, more stress on salmon. And that doesn't even get into some of the less obvious impacts.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #207 on: January 25, 2016, 08:45:11 PM »
As in, how much above our baseline has the climate already warmed up, and how much of that can we reasonably assume (as in, do we have evidence) is due to increases in CO2 rather than some other cause, or natural variations?  Does that answer exist? I don't know,

I have previously provided you the following link, which answers these exact questions with pretty animated graphs:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Since you apparently didn't read it last time, I'm not sure that offering it to you again will make much difference.

I did spend some time following that link this time, so taking that site at face value, the other (known) factors are a net reduction on temps by about a quarter degree F, with a net increase of about 1.6 (or so) degrees F.  I do have some issues with the graph data itself; such as the very small baseline period (1880 to 1910, so 30 years) and the lack of a comparable unit in the graphs.  Looking further into the methodology of the site, I found out that a particular model was used (ModelE2) and I went looking for data on that model specifically.  I discovered a paper that attempts to use the model to run simulations upon the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, and I found it rather telling that the most modern & accurate model available still had to have it's input data corrected to match the proxy data...

Quote
High latitude amplification of the sea surface temperature
anomaly  is  asymmetrical,  with  more  than  twice  as  much
warming  in  the  Northern  Hemisphere  (+4.5◦C)  as  in  the
Southern Hemisphere (+2.2◦C) in GMCORR. The peak of
the zonal average SST falls at 65◦N, at the high end of the
range of PlioMIP models, and slightly exceeds the PRISM3D
data for that latitude. Sea surface temperatures in GMCORRare up to 9◦C warmer in the North Atlantic than in the un-corrected  model  at  their  peak (Fig.  2);  in  fact,  zonal  aver-age  SSTs  in  the  corrected  model  are  warmer  than  at  any
other location. In contrast, at similar latitudes the peak SST
Zonal average anomalies of surface air temperature (in blue)
and sea surface temperature (in red). The simulated high-latitude
amplification of surface air temperature and the peak SSTs around65◦N are more similar to proxy data than those produced by the earlier GM
UNCOR version of the GISS ModelE2-R, but tropical
temperature anomalies in both versions are still slightly higher than
data interpretations for the mid-Pliocene
.

The logic, I presume, of backdating models to this time period is that CO2 levels averaged about 405 PPM, providing for a rather ideal time period to backtest models against.  On net, however, I'd say that this model supports my premise that climate change may yet prove to be a net boon for humanity.

Here's the full paper Moonshadow quotes the abstract of above.
http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/6/517/2013/gmd-6-517-2013.pdf

But, there remains a question of if climate change will be a net boon for humanity. Returning to my native Washington, one of the big impacts associated with warming is a rise in the snow line, which reduces the April 1 snowpack. April 1 snowpack is a widely used metric of water available for irrigation, and is a significant factor in agriculture in the state. Farmers watch the snowpack closely because it more or less controls their water allotment. Lower snowpack means less water in August when their crops are thirsty. Add to that an earlier onset of spring and they are a few weeks further into the summer at that point. This effect puts significant pressure on agriculture, none of which is beneficial. Similar patterns are associated with increased fire risk, and projections indicate many more square miles of western forests will burn as a result of summer conditions resulting from climate change. Again, no upside there. Low summer instream flows can also result in increased stream temperatures threatening salmon populations and the fishing industries that rely on them.

If we reduce it to how it will affect me, this it what it looks like: strain on the agricultural sector output and economy, increased wildfire impacts, more stress on salmon. And that doesn't even get into some of the less obvious impacts.

This is an entirely local impact, and I can easily make the argument that the Pacific coast states don't really have enough water available to sustainablely provide for both agriculture & population when it's not a drought.  I could just as easily use my own region as a counter-example, as there is no predicted impact upon water availability in Kentucky, and the growing season is predicted to grow by 2 weeks to a month, making us comparable to the growing climate of Alabama.  So, perhaps, either you shouldn't live there or the incumbent agriculture is inappropriate.  Here's an interesting tidbit, corn takes a lot of water to grow, and in most corn states it's grown in huge circles because of enormous watering machines that rotate around a single point.  I have never seen this method used in Kentucky.  It might be used by someone, but it sure isn't common; and huge squares of corn fields are a common sight, for which it would be impossible to irrigate even with a fire hose.  I know quite a few gardeners who don't even make a habit out of watering anything after sprouting, unless we are actually in a drought.  I can count the number of times I've deliberately watered a grass lawn, in my entire life, on one hand; and zero of those events has occurred in the past 3 years & only once in the past decade.  Believe it or not, the water rights/issues/wars of the Western states make no sense to the rest of the nation.  Water access should be as free a market as any other resource, in which case the true cost of water would be visible to all, and it would be apparent to many that there are already too many people living in the region.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #208 on: January 25, 2016, 11:41:04 PM »
I do have some issues with the graph data itself; such as the very small baseline period (1880 to 1910, so 30 years)

The best we can do is compare to the best records we have.  Since the climate denialist movement thinks isotopes are lies created by Satan, they refuse any measurement other than ones that come from actual thermometers.  And thermometers haven't been widely distributed enough to give us a good global average for more than about 140 years, and rolling 30 year periods is kind of the standard way to do the comparison.  We compare thermometers today to then, and yet we STILL have to fight people who deny that the planet is warming, some of them in this very thread.  Data don't matter to these people.

I discovered a paper that attempts to use the model to run simulations upon the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, and I found it rather telling that the most modern & accurate model available still had to have it's input data corrected to match the proxy data...

There are a variety of problems here.  Many of these models (okay, all models of any kind that humans have ever created) tend to match some of the observation data points better than others.  The model is necessarily a mathematical simplification of an enormously complicated natural system, and it will never capture all complexity of the real world unless it models every atom of the real world.  But we don't need that level of fidelity to model an airplane wing or a new traffic pattern, because the mathematical simplifications capture the relevant parts that we care about, and we can be confident that one wing is going to perform better than another wing without knowing every single thing about every atom in them. 

The climate models work in a similar fashion; we can tell that increasing CO2 increases temperature, and the exact details of how much and how fast are less well constrained.  The result is the same, though; everyone agrees that the amount of CO2 we're burning will increase temperature.  There is more uncertainty in our economic models that try to predict how fast we'll burn it than there is in the climate models that try to predict how much warming will result from a given amount of burning.  The world is a complicated place, but we still design airplanes for it.

So when I hear people say "climate models will never convince me because they're not evidence" I just shake my head.  If I tell you that shooting yourself in the head is likely to kill you, you can make the exact same argument.  "It's just a theory."  "You don't have any proof."  Well, we only have one planet and we're running this particular experiment live, in real time, right now.  We'll find out soon enough what the results are but everyone else seems pretty sure the answer is obvious.

Quote
I'd say that this model supports my premise that climate change may yet prove to be a net boon for humanity.

Net boon?  Isn't that kind of a bogus yardstick for a nation state to use?

The United States doesn't care about the net boon to humanity.  Humanity was not markedly improved by invading Afghanistan but we did it anyway.  Everything we do is about protecting our own national interests, which will not be well served by a warming climate for a whole host of reasons we don't need to go into.  Just because some Canadians and Swedes may end up better off does not mean everyone will, not on balance and certainly not here.

And besides, humanity struggles with change.  Yes, we could relocate a billion people to more hospitably regions, but is really worth prompting mass migrations of global populations just to protect the earnings reports of some US corporations?  What about people forced to evacuate their ancestral homelands?  What about the people already living in the places those displaced persons will have to migrate to, do they get along?  Do they want a huge wave of immigrants?  Do they even have the infrastructure to support them all?  How will they get there?

Over the centuries of time that climate change will continue to cause people problems, I expect we'll work it out.  But there will be wars and uprisings and genocides along the way that could have been avoided if people had been allowed to stay put.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #209 on: January 26, 2016, 12:10:38 AM »
This is an entirely local impact, and I can easily make the argument that the Pacific coast states don't really have enough water available to sustainablely provide for both agriculture & population when it's not a drought.

This is a local issue and you're not local so it's easy to forgive your ignorance.

But I won't let it go unchallenged.  Technically speaking the Pacific Northwest is one of the few places in the country that DOES have enough water to provide for both agriculture and population (and ecosystems).  The water shortages we face are entirely the result of inadequate storage reservoir capacity, and our inability to increase our storage capacity is entirely due to the US government's inability to use eminent domain to take the land we need to build the dams we need.  There are about thirty people in the PNW who are costing you a billion tax dollars per year because Uncle Sam doesn't want people to think he's a bully. 

If this were the 1930s, we'd have this problem solved in time for summer.  Just say "I'm sorry, your land is necessary for the economic vitality of the region, here's 125% of fair market value for your property, be out in three months because we're flooding it."  China does it, with great success, but America is so afraid of it's citizenry that we actually give them federal lands for free whenever they ask.

Quote
I could just as easily use my own region as a counter-example, as there is no predicted impact

Really?  I just googled "climate change impacts on Kentucky" and found a bunch of people who have a different opinion. 
Try these folks:  http://wfpl.org/report-breaks-climate-changes-impending-effect-kentuckys-economy/

Looks to me like they have a whole list of impacts, including an extra 300 deaths per year in Kentucky alone due to rising incidence of heat-related illnesses.  How much money do you think the Kentucky State Legislature would spend to avert 300 deaths per year by landslide or electrocution or coal mine accidents? 

Quote
Believe it or not, the water rights/issues/wars of the Western states make no sense to the rest of the nation.  Water access should be as free a market as any other resource, in which case the true cost of water would be visible to all, and it would be apparent to many that there are already too many people living in the region.

There are so many things wrong here.  I'll try to break them down.

1.  Your argument might hold more water if you were talking about California or Arizona or Nevada or Utah.  But Washington?  Washington actually HAS adjudicated water rights.  Our system is one of the few in the entire country that DOES make sense.

2.  Resources are never free markets, because they are publicly owned.  Oil drilling is not a free market.  Gold mines are not a free market.  Water is not (usually) a free market.  You have to own mineral rights to extract minerals.  You (usually) have to own water rights to extract water. 

3.  Sometimes water IS a free market, like in California, and it's a disaster.  It's a classic tragedy of the commons problem where you can legally use any water you can find, so farmers all race to see who can pump the lakes dry the fastest.  Crops are overwatered in the desert and then the land is abandoned when the soil is destroyed.  Aquifers are crushed by overextraction.  Rivers don't flow so cities have no where to dump their sewage.  It's been a shit show down there since the 1940s and only in the past 18 months or so are they (following Washington's lead) finally putting some restrictions on who gets to do what.  They had to, otherwise they'll just self-destruct. 

4.  Too many people living in the region?  Again your argument might apply to California or Las Vegas, but not the PNW. We're actually taking on those climate refugees from parts of the country where climate change is making life unpleasant, like California and Vegas, because we have abundant land and water for them. 

The problems that Glenstached mentioned are very real, but I think they're temporary.  Yes, our snowpack will shrink by at least 50% and all of the ski resorts in the state will go out of business.  Yes, our supply of irrigation water will drop because we can't build the dams we need to hold on to that water.  Yes, I-5 will flood again like it did in 2007 and 2009, shutting down all north-south trade and commerce on the west coast.  Yes, the state will lost about $2 billion per year in agricultural production that has to move to Canada, but the "net boon" argument says that's totally fine even if the farmers here don't.  But none of that matters to people in Kentucky, so what do they care about climate change?

TheNick

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #210 on: January 26, 2016, 03:25:02 AM »
The best we can do is compare to the best records we have.  Since the climate denialist movement thinks isotopes are lies created by Satan, they refuse any measurement other than ones that come from actual thermometers.  And thermometers haven't been widely distributed enough to give us a good global average for more than about 140 years, and rolling 30 year periods is kind of the standard way to do the comparison.  We compare thermometers today to then, and yet we STILL have to fight people who deny that the planet is warming, some of them in this very thread.  Data don't matter to these people.

Or, data does matter to these people, which is why they are skeptics.  For as long as the earth has existed, climate has not been stable, and it probably never will stabilize.  It really is kind of pointless trying to argue about climate trends that have been going on for billions of years looking at such a tiny period of time.

Looking back at data we do know that we fairly recently went through a mini ice age during the medieval period.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

"The Little Ice Age ended in the latter half of the nineteenth century or early in the twentieth century."

So really...studies that only want to look at 140 years of data...what are they using as a start point...the end of a cool period?  If you go back further you could find a warmer period and claim we are in a global cool down for thousands of years.  I'm with MoonShadow on this...I'm not denying if you want to look at a fixed portion of data that temperatures have risen recently...but when you look at the big picture we have had hotter periods and we have had cooler periods that pre dated modern man's use of fossil fuels.

So when I hear people say "climate models will never convince me because they're not evidence" I just shake my head.  If I tell you that shooting yourself in the head is likely to kill you, you can make the exact same argument.  "It's just a theory."  "You don't have any proof."  Well, we only have one planet and we're running this particular experiment live, in real time, right now.  We'll find out soon enough what the results are but everyone else seems pretty sure the answer is obvious.

When I hear people fear monger about "climate change" I just shake my head.  Who cares?  We can all agree air pollution is bad.  What's the ultimate "fix" for climate change...less air pollution?  But we've already agreed air pollution is bad.  We can't accurately predict the weather next week...whats the point in dumping billions into trying to predict the weather 100 years from now?  There is none...its just an excuse for the government to piss away billions of dollars a year, and pissing away money is the governments favorite activity.  Its simply overly politicized at this point. 

The sad thing is a candidate with a platform of "Climate change is a hoax let's build a bunch of new, modern nuclear plants" is actually cutting back on emissions more than one that wants to whine about climate change and spend a bunch of money on solar panels...that produce a whopping .4% of our electricity.  Never mind we still rely so heavily on gas and coal plants...those fancy solar panels make great photo ops!

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #211 on: January 26, 2016, 07:17:17 AM »
When I hear people fear monger about "climate change" I just shake my head.  Who cares?  We can all agree air pollution is bad.  What's the ultimate "fix" for climate change...less air pollution?  But we've already agreed air pollution is bad.  We can't accurately predict the weather next week...whats the point in dumping billions into trying to predict the weather 100 years from now?  There is none...its just an excuse for the government to piss away billions of dollars a year, and pissing away money is the governments favorite activity.  Its simply overly politicized at this point. 

The sad thing is a candidate with a platform of "Climate change is a hoax let's build a bunch of new, modern nuclear plants" is actually cutting back on emissions more than one that wants to whine about climate change and spend a bunch of money on solar panels...that produce a whopping .4% of our electricity.  Never mind we still rely so heavily on gas and coal plants...those fancy solar panels make great photo ops!

When I hear people fear monger about ISIS, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China, I just shake my head. Who cares? We can all agree that terrorism, nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue states, and countries invading other countries is bad. We can't accurately predict what any country is doing next week... whats the point in dumping billions into a military to handle potential conflicts? There is none...its just an excuse for the government to piss away billions of dollars a year...

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8824
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #212 on: January 26, 2016, 07:33:25 AM »
So really...studies that only want to look at 140 years of data...what are they using as a start point...the end of a cool period?

They are using the spread of the industrial revolution around the world, and the consequent creation of very significant CO2 emissions by the activities of man.  The existence of which in the atmosphere has been measured.

Sigh.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #213 on: January 26, 2016, 08:27:13 AM »

This is an entirely local impact, and I can easily make the argument that the Pacific coast states don't really have enough water available to sustainablely provide for both agriculture & population when it's not a drought.  I could just as easily use my own region as a counter-example, as there is no predicted impact upon water availability in Kentucky, and the growing season is predicted to grow by 2 weeks to a month, making us comparable to the growing climate of Alabama.  So, perhaps, either you shouldn't live there or the incumbent agriculture is inappropriate.  Here's an interesting tidbit, corn takes a lot of water to grow, and in most corn states it's grown in huge circles because of enormous watering machines that rotate around a single point.  I have never seen this method used in Kentucky.  It might be used by someone, but it sure isn't common; and huge squares of corn fields are a common sight, for which it would be impossible to irrigate even with a fire hose.  I know quite a few gardeners who don't even make a habit out of watering anything after sprouting, unless we are actually in a drought.  I can count the number of times I've deliberately watered a grass lawn, in my entire life, on one hand; and zero of those events has occurred in the past 3 years & only once in the past decade.  Believe it or not, the water rights/issues/wars of the Western states make no sense to the rest of the nation.  Water access should be as free a market as any other resource, in which case the true cost of water would be visible to all, and it would be apparent to many that there are already too many people living in the region.

I'll just make an comment/observation on growing crops in the western US.  Then I have to get back to work.
A lot of people criticize the fact that we grow so much food in California and the PNW, saying things like "with a shortage of water during droughts it's a stupid place to grow things - we ought to end large-scale Ag in California and move it to places that have lots of water" (note; I'm not saying anyone on this thread has said htis, just that this is a common refrain i've noticed throughout discussions). 
Let's look a bit closer at that argument.  If the aim is to grow large amounts of food inexpensively and supply a country year-round, a region needs the following:
1) fertile soil
2) a climate where the ground doesn't freeze in the winter or get too hot (>90ºF) in the summer and predictable weather
3) sufficient water
4) direct access over land to large markets (road or rail - not ships).
California has 3/4 every year, and has all 4 during non-drought years.  Which begs the question - is there any place that's better?  The mid-west nad northeast are handicapped because of winter - you can't grow crops year around (and is why they primarily grow grains there that can be stored).  Parts of the south (Florida in particular) are already large agricultural centers, but they can suffer from excessive heat and hurricanes.  Mexico (particularly Baja) also suffers from a lack of water.  In short: California and Oregon are the best two regions we have for growing crops.  The only thing they lack is enough water during some years.

So back to water rights and your assertion that:
Quote
as free a market as any other resource, in which case the true cost of water would be visible to all, and it would be apparent to many that there are already too many people living in the region.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that.  Not only does the US need California and ORegon to keep producing food year round if we want to keep food prices incredibly low (an argument in and of itself) and fresh veggies on the shelves in the middle of winter, but the water is absolutely vital for many other things.  Salmon often come into the cross-hairs here, but the simple fact is if you take too much water the streams dry up, the salmon don't spawn, and an entire ecosystem suffers (not to mention California's most valuable fishery historically). Cities need a certain allotment of water, as does industry.  Farmers and cities do pay for their water, but it's a little hard to ask salmon and herons to chip in as well.  So we have a partitioning of the water every year, based on the snow-pack levels on April 1st.  Once that partition happens, market forces *do* kick in. But I think if we just allowed as much water to be purchased by whomever was willing to pay for it would be disasterous.

pdean

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Location: Sewanee, Tennessee
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #214 on: January 26, 2016, 02:09:04 PM »
When I saw this article I immediately thought of the idea which I've seen put forward in this thread that warmer global temps (whether anthropogenic or not) will be benign.

"Eventually, of course, the disease will reach these shores – at least 10 Americans have come back from overseas with the infection, and one microcephalic baby has already been born in Hawaii to a mother exposed in Brazil early in her pregnancy. But America is rich enough to avoid the worst of the mess its fossil fuel habits have helped create."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/25/zika-virus-brazil-dystopian-climate-future#img-1

brett2k07

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #215 on: January 26, 2016, 02:35:40 PM »
Plot twist: What if our current ice sheets are as a result of the last ice age, and we're still recovering? Perhaps the higher ocean levels were actually "normal" levels long ago and we're just now returning back to that normal.

I should note this is just a theory of mine due to having too much time on my hands to think about things like this. I don't have any evidence whatsoever, and I'm not aware of any articles that would confirm this might even be a remote possibility.

TheNick

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 136
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #216 on: January 26, 2016, 02:36:50 PM »
So really...studies that only want to look at 140 years of data...what are they using as a start point...the end of a cool period?

They are using the spread of the industrial revolution around the world, and the consequent creation of very significant CO2 emissions by the activities of man.  The existence of which in the atmosphere has been measured.

Sigh.

That doesn't relate to my comment at all.  I'm not interested in just the last 140 years of cycles that have been going on for billions, especially when the "start point" for "relevant" data is the earth coming out of a mini ice age.  Go back a little further...what do you see...



Its cyclical.  Why don't we use 1100 B.C. for our start point and claim  the earth has been in a cooling cycle for the last 3000 years....we should all fear global cooling!  Those ancient Egyptians must have got some pretty bad gas mileage in their cars to cause that much global warming.

I'm not denying that air pollution is bad and if we can cut back on it that is a good thing, or that we haven't seen a warming trend over the last 100 hundreds.  I'm not even denying climate change is going on, but I'd like to ask you, its been going on for billions of years why would right now be any different? What I am doing is I'm questioning what is put forth as undeniable truth when clearly what is going on is the cherry picking of statistics to promote a political agenda.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #217 on: January 26, 2016, 02:46:25 PM »
So really...studies that only want to look at 140 years of data...what are they using as a start point...the end of a cool period?

They are using the spread of the industrial revolution around the world, and the consequent creation of very significant CO2 emissions by the activities of man.  The existence of which in the atmosphere has been measured.

Sigh.



That doesn't relate to my comment at all.  I'm not interested in just the last 140 years of cycles that have been going on for billions, especially when the "start point" for "relevant" data is the earth coming out of a mini ice age.  Go back a little further...what do you see...

Its cyclical.  Why don't we use 1100 B.C. for our start point and claim  the earth has been in a cooling cycle for the last 3000 years....we should all fear global cooling!  Those ancient Egyptians must have got some pretty bad gas mileage in their cars to cause that much global warming.

I'm not denying that air pollution is bad and if we can cut back on it that is a good thing, or that we haven't seen a warming trend over the last 100 hundreds.  I'm not even denying climate change is going on, but I'd like to ask you, its been going on for billions of years why would right now be any different? What I am doing is I'm questioning what is put forth as undeniable truth when clearly what is going on is the cherry picking of statistics to promote a political agenda.

Also from the climatologist listed on that chart:
http://weather-and-bible-prophecy.myshopify.com/

... moving on ....

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #218 on: January 26, 2016, 03:01:41 PM »
Plot twist: What if our current ice sheets are as a result of the last ice age, and we're still recovering? Perhaps the higher ocean levels were actually "normal" levels long ago and we're just now returning back to that normal.

In a way, this is exactly what has happened.  At times in our planet's history ice sheets have been much more extensive and sea levels were much lower - 125m (410 feet) lower.  This last happened about 18,000 years ago.  Conversely, there have been entire periods when there were no glaciers and sea level was much, much higher - up to 80m higher (262 feet).  The planet has been much warmer than present day many, many times, and it's been much cooler than it is today many, many times.  As I indicated further up-thread, we don't see gradual and continuous shifts from one state to another, rather we have very warm periods for thousands of years, and then very cold glacial periods for thousands of years.  The transition tends to be abrupt, occurring over just a few decades or centuries.  In other words, once the climate changes it enters a new "stable state" and its hard for it to drift back without some new force. These occur because there are a lot of feedback mechanisms - for example once a glacier starts to receed it melts at an ever faster rate.   Interestingly, these shifts in climate are also punctuated by massive species extinctions, followed by massive speciation events (where new species differentiate). 

These shifts have in the past been caused by solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, etc.  Now the worry is that anthopogenic release of greeen-house gases will cause another shift, especially since we should be entering a cooling period based on solar (Milankovitch) cycles.  It's also a concern that atmospheric CO2 has been increasing very rapidly over the last 100 years, and at our current consumption rate of fossil fuels will only continue to increase.

There isn't any doubt in my mind that life of some sort will continue if/when our climate changes considerably.  The question to me at least is how well humanity will do if/when so many of our current coastal cities are flooded and the traditional crop-growing regions shift. My personal view/hope is that we can arrest a shift in our climate before we reach a point where sea-levels really rise.  Others think that it's more prudent to simply use our funds to adapt to changes, and/or believe that we don't know enough yet about what changes will occur to really act.


former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8824
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #219 on: January 26, 2016, 03:08:08 PM »
So really...studies that only want to look at 140 years of data...what are they using as a start point...the end of a cool period?

They are using the spread of the industrial revolution around the world, and the consequent creation of very significant CO2 emissions by the activities of man.  The existence of which in the atmosphere has been measured.

Sigh.

That doesn't relate to my comment at all.  I'm not interested in just the last 140 years of cycles that have been going on for billions, especially when the "start point" for "relevant" data is the earth coming out of a mini ice age.  Go back a little further...what do you see...

[image omitted]

Its cyclical.  Why don't we use 1100 B.C. for our start point and claim  the earth has been in a cooling cycle for the last 3000 years....we should all fear global cooling!  Those ancient Egyptians must have got some pretty bad gas mileage in their cars to cause that much global warming.

I'm not denying that air pollution is bad and if we can cut back on it that is a good thing, or that we haven't seen a warming trend over the last 100 hundreds.  I'm not even denying climate change is going on, but I'd like to ask you, its been going on for billions of years why would right now be any different? What I am doing is I'm questioning what is put forth as undeniable truth when clearly what is going on is the cherry picking of statistics to promote a political agenda.

The Anthropocene cycles have been going on for about 140 years.   They are layered on top of what one might call the Gaian cycles which have been going on for billions of years.   Only by taking into account both will it be possible to understand what is happening now and what might happen in the future.

Dear dog, it's like talking to a toddler: "but mummy....."

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #220 on: January 26, 2016, 03:41:48 PM »
TheNick was banned for trolling and multiple accounts.


MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #221 on: January 26, 2016, 03:44:18 PM »
This is an entirely local impact, and I can easily make the argument that the Pacific coast states don't really have enough water available to sustainablely provide for both agriculture & population when it's not a drought.

This is a local issue and you're not local so it's easy to forgive your ignorance.

But I won't let it go unchallenged.  Technically speaking the Pacific Northwest is one of the few places in the country that DOES have enough water to provide for both agriculture and population (and ecosystems).  The water shortages we face are entirely the result of inadequate storage reservoir capacity, and our inability to increase our storage capacity is entirely due to the US government's inability to use eminent domain to take the land we need to build the dams we need.  There are about thirty people in the PNW who are costing you a billion tax dollars per year because Uncle Sam doesn't want people to think he's a bully


Hmm, that's interesting.  I would find the use of eminent domain to build water infrastructure to be both a rational mitigation step for climate change (or any other water crisis) as well as a valid use of eminent domain laws.  I don't think we are too far apart on this topic, Sol, even if you seem to get worked up about your life's work.

Quote
China does it, with great success, but America is so afraid of it's citizenry that we actually give them federal lands for free whenever they ask.

China doesn't actually pay for it, they just take it.  I don't think China is a good example of infrastructure built for the gain of the public.  The 3 Rivers dam was built for the gain of the elite; although it took a huge step forward in reducing their carbon footprint, it was a disaster for the immediate environment (as all civil engineering of that scale is) as well as a disaster for the subsistence farming communities that were literally covered in water.
Quote
Quote
I could just as easily use my own region as a counter-example, as there is no predicted impact

Really?  I just googled "climate change impacts on Kentucky" and found a bunch of people who have a different opinion. 
Try these folks:  http://wfpl.org/report-breaks-climate-changes-impending-effect-kentuckys-economy/

Yeah, I read that.  More than a bit of a biased report, though.  Of course corn & soybeans would do worse in a wet climate as warm as Alabama, we already knew that.  Other cash crops would do better, and that article even predicted a slight increase in rainfall for the state.  An estimated 300 additional deaths from heat exposure.  I'm actually not surprised it's not higher, but the deaths due to drunk driving alone amount to about half of that each year already.  I never said that everyone would be able to adapt well.  Kentucky has an aging demographic as well.

Quote
How much money do you think the Kentucky State Legislature would spend to avert 300 deaths per year by landslide or electrocution or coal mine accidents? 
They are almost all Democrats, so quite a bit.  Still, that won't come anywhere near the economic costs of the kind of climate change abatement that has been proposed. 

Quote
Quote
Believe it or not, the water rights/issues/wars of the Western states make no sense to the rest of the nation.  Water access should be as free a market as any other resource, in which case the true cost of water would be visible to all, and it would be apparent to many that there are already too many people living in the region.

There are so many things wrong here.  I'll try to break them down.

1.  Your argument might hold more water if you were talking about California or Arizona or Nevada or Utah.  But Washington?  Washington actually HAS adjudicated water rights.  Our system is one of the few in the entire country that DOES make sense.

2.  Resources are never free markets, because they are publicly owned.  Oil drilling is not a free market.  Gold mines are not a free market.  Water is not (usually) a free market.  You have to own mineral rights to extract minerals.  You (usually) have to own water rights to extract water

That is the western state mentality.  Water falls from the sky where I live, quite literally for free.  I could hang a tarp to catch it, no access or mineral rights required.  And even if they did, in Kentucky, anyone who owns any property owns the mineral rights to the dirt below it, unless they have already been sold.  And no one buys water as a mineral right here, because I have lived 30 years of my life on top of the largest, naturally replenishing aquifer on Earth. 

http://academic.emporia.edu/schulmem/hydro/TERM%20PROJECTS/2007/Jung/Ohio_River_Alluvium_Aquifer_Louisville__Kentucky.htm

Quote
3.  Sometimes water IS a free market, like in California, and it's a disaster.
California is definitely not a free market in water, and never has been.



MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #222 on: January 26, 2016, 03:53:50 PM »

There isn't any doubt in my mind that life of some sort will continue if/when our climate changes considerably.  The question to me at least is how well humanity will do if/when so many of our current coastal cities are flooded and the traditional crop-growing regions shift. My personal view/hope is that we can arrest a shift in our climate before we reach a point where sea-levels really rise.  Others think that it's more prudent to simply use our funds to adapt to changes, and/or believe that we don't know enough yet about what changes will occur to really act.
There it is, my position well understood by Nereo.  So I ask once again, what evidence exists that can show me that caution & continued observation is not the more prudent path for the forseeable future, that also doesn't imply that it's already too late for government regulations, no matter how draconian, to prevent great changes?  I'm not even convinced that there is an objective position to take on next steps yet, and what we are doing here is largely arguing about dancing on the head of a pin.  Excepting, of course, for Music Lover.  I'm pretty sure he's certain about what to do next.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #223 on: January 26, 2016, 05:23:38 PM »

There isn't any doubt in my mind that life of some sort will continue if/when our climate changes considerably.  The question to me at least is how well humanity will do if/when so many of our current coastal cities are flooded and the traditional crop-growing regions shift. My personal view/hope is that we can arrest a shift in our climate before we reach a point where sea-levels really rise.  Others think that it's more prudent to simply use our funds to adapt to changes, and/or believe that we don't know enough yet about what changes will occur to really act.
There it is, my position well understood by Nereo.  So I ask once again, what evidence exists that can show me that caution & continued observation is not the more prudent path for the forseeable future, that also doesn't imply that it's already too late for government regulations, no matter how draconian, to prevent great changes?  I'm not even convinced that there is an objective position to take on next steps yet, and what we are doing here is largely arguing about dancing on the head of a pin.  Excepting, of course, for Music Lover.  I'm pretty sure he's certain about what to do next.

Let's explore this a bit further. This is, at least in part, what is referred to as the 'wait and see' approach. In that approach there are two basic endmembers: everything is fine and we all sigh a gasp of relief or climate change has significant adverse effects in line with predictions (or worse, there is more than one way a model can be wrong, correct?). Option 1 is obviously a win for everybody, and we will all burn a gallon of gasoline in celebration. I think the core of MoonShadow's question as it relates to adaptation and penalties of waiting really fall in Option 2.

The short answer is that the downsides are that waiting makes it harder to address the problem both from a technical perspective and from a cost perspective. If we need to stay below a specific CO2 concentration to avoid detrimental impacts, the longer that we wait, the more extreme the required reductions will have to be to meet that threshold. I think we are all smart enough to understand why that would be harder and more expensive and I won't belabor it.

But wait! Isn't there a third option on the spectrum where there are impacts, but they are not so bad and we can just throw a few sandbags on our sea walls and call it good? In this case it is a straightforward comparison of mitigation costs, plus acknowledgement of the human misery that will be generated (possibly quantified as the cost of induced resource conflict, etc. There is a reason economics is the dismal science). The actual cost of doing this have been summarized elsewhere:
https://energy.wisc.edu/news/power-points/clean-energy-versus-status-quo-cost-comparison
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/the_cost_of_delaying_action_to_stem_climate_change.pdf

To some extent, even if uncomfortable with the uncertainty, action could be considered a form of Pascal's wager.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #224 on: January 26, 2016, 05:26:55 PM »
TheNick was banned for trolling and multiple accounts.
Just curious... how do you know this?

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #225 on: January 26, 2016, 05:32:23 PM »
TheNick was banned for trolling and multiple accounts.
Just curious... how do you know this?

Because he was incessantly trolling other threads, as well, and was caught out for it:

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/liberal-or-conservative/msg953259/#msg953259


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #226 on: January 26, 2016, 05:53:55 PM »
Alright, at least we seem to be understanding one another's position.

I think Glenstache hit closest to my opinion on how we should address climate change best.
Since this is at least in part a financial forum, perhaps it could be useful to think about this in terms of risk.  I think we call all agree that there's a risk our climate will change considerably, and this risk may have real economic costs.  We differ (apparently considerably so) on our evaluation of what degree of risk this is, and what the potential costs could be.  Regardless, as with any risk it's sensible to consider the costs to mitigate that risk, and whether measures to mitigate risk can effectively reduce the likelihood of the risk occurring.  Sound fair so far?
To sum up, we could put it like this:
1) what is the risk that significant climate change will occur in the next several decades?
2) what will the cost (economic, but also social etc) should this risk play out?
3) what would it cost to effectively mitigate this risk?
4) would mitigation efforts be effective at reducing the risks that climate change present?

Bonus (aka MoonShadow's ultimate question): Is the cost of trying to mitigate the risk of global warming less than the cost of adapting to it, should bad things happen.
Does everything about sound reasonable?
...and unfortunately I must leave this now to continue later.  Just so everyone's clear what my individual answers are to the above questions, they are 1) high, 2) enormous, 3) considerable but manageable and 4) probably, but uncertain.  Bonus:  given that I believe the risk (#1) to be high and the potential cost of climate change to be enormous (#2) I think its sensible to use considerable resources in an attempt to mitigate this risk.  Feel free to discuss...

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #227 on: January 26, 2016, 05:55:40 PM »
TheNick was banned for trolling and multiple accounts.
Just curious... how do you know this?

Because he was incessantly trolling other threads, as well, and was caught out for it:

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/liberal-or-conservative/msg953259/#msg953259
Thanks.  I avoided that thread from the start; the title alone suggested that it was rapidly going to devolve into strangers over the internet yelling at each other, and I can only participate in so many of those at any given time.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #228 on: January 26, 2016, 06:20:45 PM »
To some extent, even if uncomfortable with the uncertainty, action could be considered a form of Pascal's wager.
I would tend to agree - not everyone does.  E.g., see http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/continue-the-blog-conversation/are-climate-skeptics-always-anti-science/msg419612/#msg419612 and associated posts....

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #229 on: January 26, 2016, 06:23:11 PM »

The short answer is that the downsides are that waiting makes it harder to address the problem both from a technical perspective and from a cost perspective. If we need to stay below a specific CO2 concentration to avoid detrimental impacts, the longer that we wait, the more extreme the required reductions will have to be to meet that threshold. I think we are all smart enough to understand why that would be harder and more expensive and I won't belabor it.
That's just it, it needs to belabored.  While I agree that it's generally true that dealing with a known problem early is better than later, even with a high degree of certainty, this isn't always the case.  And despite your claims otherwise, there is at least some degree of uncertainty.  Just a few minutes ago I was reading this....

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-snow-job-1453664732

And found this part relevant...
Quote
    Instead of relying on debatable surface-temperature information, consider instead readings in the free atmosphere (technically, the lower troposphere) taken by two independent sensors: satellite sounders and weather balloons. As has been shown repeatedly by University of Alabama climate scientist John Christy, since late 1978 (when the satellite record begins), the rate of warming in the satellite-sensed data is barely a third of what it was supposed to have been, according to the large family of global climate models now in existence. Balloon data, averaged over the four extant data sets, shows the same.

    It is therefore probably prudent to cut by 50% the modeled temperature forecasts for the rest of this century.

Quote

But wait! Isn't there a third option on the spectrum where there are impacts, but they are not so bad and we can just throw a few sandbags on our sea walls and call it good? In this case it is a straightforward comparison of mitigation costs, plus acknowledgement of the human misery that will be generated (possibly quantified as the cost of induced resource conflict, etc. There is a reason economics is the dismal science). The actual cost of doing this have been summarized elsewhere:
https://energy.wisc.edu/news/power-points/clean-energy-versus-status-quo-cost-comparison
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/the_cost_of_delaying_action_to_stem_climate_change.pdf

To some extent, even if uncomfortable with the uncertainty, action could be considered a form of Pascal's wager.

Yes, climate change could cost up to $44 trillion dollars over the course of many decades; and many carbon free renewable energy sources will have a net lifetime payback better than fossil fuels over that time.  I won't even contest those claims, I am building my own solar array on my house, after all.  But that isn't the question, why do we need international treaties & an international regulatory scheme to manage these changes?  As I have said many times, Hubbert's Peak will guarantee that solar panels will be a sound domestic improvement investment for generations to come; why do we need to force it a few years earlier with subsidies? It will come regardless.  As with so many things, many of them rather important for the public, the many independent decisions of people (totaling up to "the free market") are much more likely to discover less expensive mitigations than government actions.

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #230 on: January 27, 2016, 06:12:17 AM »
why do we need to force it a few years earlier with subsidies? It will come regardless.

I never understand the basis for this claim, which typically amounts to "renewables don't deserve subsidies." What is the issue with subsidies, especially for domestic energy production? Isn't the purpose of tax money collected in part to spur economic growth by investing in various domestic sectors? Why is renewable energy not worthy of the same subsidies that practically every other industry in our country receives? If you spur clean economic energy production, you also spur job growth, competition, more tax revenue. And how does this carry over to relying in international energy supplies? Well perhaps one day we won't need to spend trillions of dollars funding wars and sending thousands of folks to die "securing" our overseas interest. Not to mention the cleaner air, cleaner water, etc. etc.

I am ALL FOR my tax money going to fund domestic economic growth, especially if a wonderful side affect is lives spared and trillions saved.

On a side note, but related, my own state passed legislation roughly 2-3 years ago that froze RPS requirements for state energy producers. At the time SREC (solar renewable energy credits) values were around $350-$400. Once legislation passed the value of SRECs fell of a proverbial cliff. They are worth about $25 now. This has turned many folks away from investing in solar arrays. So much so that state solar companies have laid people off and are looking outside of the state for work. Even the local college has stopped offering some renewable energy classes. They did all this in an attempt to save ratepayers money on their energy bills. You know the thinking was since solar was booming and SREC values were high, the energy companies "must" be passing these cost onto consumers. Well they were right. In the end we all saved a whopping $5/year. Yes you read that right. $5!!! A Starbucks cup of coffee per year.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #231 on: January 27, 2016, 04:14:20 PM »
why do we need to force it a few years earlier with subsidies? It will come regardless.

I never understand the basis for this claim, which typically amounts to "renewables don't deserve subsidies."
Nothing  a free market could reasonably supply deserves taxpayer support.  Before you lobby for subsidies to manufacture solar panels, which are still sold at the market price so the subsidies are just a gift to the manufacturers; perhaps you should lobby for the elimination of the oil & gas tax breaks & credits?
Quote

 What is the issue with subsidies, especially for domestic energy production? Isn't the purpose of tax money collected in part to spur economic growth by investing in various domestic sectors?
No.  Taxes are, legitimately, only collected to fund the operations of government.  Investment into any sector of the economy does not qualify.  Government ownership of the means of production is, quite literally, the root definition of socialism.  If that is what you think should be the founding philosophy of modern nation states, despite history, feel free to lobby & vote for that.  If enough of the electorate agrees with you, you will get the government you deserve.
Quote
Why is renewable energy not worthy of the same subsidies that practically every other industry in our country receives? If you spur clean economic energy production, you also spur job growth, competition, more tax revenue.
There is no evidence to suggest that this is true, and much to suggest that it is not.  Regardless; taxing the public to invest in private manufacturing is not how our government should work.  That has never ended well in the past.
Quote
And how does this carry over to relying in international energy supplies? Well perhaps one day we won't need to spend trillions of dollars funding wars and sending thousands of folks to die "securing" our overseas interest. Not to mention the cleaner air, cleaner water, etc. etc.

I am ALL FOR my tax money going to fund domestic economic growth, especially if a wonderful side affect is lives spared and trillions saved.
I'm sure that you are.  Pity it doesn't actually happen.  If you actually believe that these industries that lobby for tax subsidies will lead to economic growth; then you have quite the investment opportunity there.  Perhaps you know something the vast majority of professional investors do not?  Did you get your Solyndra stock? 
Quote

On a side note, but related, my own state passed legislation roughly 2-3 years ago that froze RPS requirements for state energy producers. At the time SREC (solar renewable energy credits) values were around $350-$400. Once legislation passed the value of SRECs fell of a proverbial cliff. They are worth about $25 now. This has turned many folks away from investing in solar arrays. So much so that state solar companies have laid people off and are looking outside of the state for work. Even the local college has stopped offering some renewable energy classes. They did all this in an attempt to save ratepayers money on their energy bills. You know the thinking was since solar was booming and SREC values were high, the energy companies "must" be passing these cost onto consumers. Well they were right. In the end we all saved a whopping $5/year. Yes you read that right. $5!!! A Starbucks cup of coffee per year.

Great! Then you could put that $5 savings right into that next big solar manufacturer's stock, and you will have the exact same end result!

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #232 on: January 27, 2016, 07:53:16 PM »
why do we need to force it a few years earlier with subsidies? It will come regardless.

I never understand the basis for this claim, which typically amounts to "renewables don't deserve subsidies."
Nothing  a free market could reasonably supply deserves taxpayer support.

Exactly. The free market DOES NOT reasonably handle externalities such as pollution. Companies that are currently spewing CO2 into the atmosphere are NOT paying the real free market price of the cost of that CO2. Hence government needs to step in. Now, that can be with taxing CO2. It can be with subsidizing non CO2 emitting alternatives to level the playing field or it can be a combination of both.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #233 on: January 27, 2016, 09:01:24 PM »
Besides, the standard libertarian argument here is that government should incentive market solutions precisely because we don't want government to have to step in with regulations to fix a problem that could have been solved more gently if it had been addressed earlier.

Carbon taxes are easy.  We just set a price per ton of emissions, and then give everyone in the country a tax rebate exactly equal to the per capita amount of revenue generated.  Presto, revenue neutral carbon tax with zero regulations, and we let the markets decide how to either reduce emissions or pay to pollute.  Nobody suffers.

Failing to control emissions with something like this means that in 30 or 50 or 100 years the problems get worse and worse and suddenly the government has to start banning whole industries that pollute the most.  Nobody wants that.

We see the same thing unfolding in the dairy industry today, where gentle incentives are refused until pollution starts literally killing children, then EPA has to come in and start issuing fines, litigating against noncompliant operations, and ultimately shutting people down.  If they had just been better stewards of the land in the first place, and taken the incentives to profitably and sustainably clean up their operations when they had the chance, everyone would be happier today. 

Climate change is one of those rare issues where the powerful people on both sides of the political spectrum agree that addressing the issue now is the right thing to do.  They just disagree on how best to do that, with one side wanting to make polluters pay (i.e. oil companies pay, and pass the costs on to consumers) and the other wanting to make taxpayers pay (i.e. corporate welfare).  It's only from underinformed members of the general public that we still hear "do nothing" proposals.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #234 on: January 27, 2016, 10:10:02 PM »
My take is that the bulk of the free market will not magically generate a long term solution that is equitable (with the exception of the insurance industry, which is on board and planning for what is to come). I think the market can, and will, provide some innovative solutions. I also believe that: 1) the market needs to be pushed in a direction to encourage that innovation, 2) that regulation can do this by creating a level playing field such that the organizations that are proactive are not financially penalized relative to their competitors, and 3) it allows us to be forward looking instead of reactive (as the market will be).

And there it is.  Your belief system. That is what where this "talking past each other" stuff comes from.

re your post # 135: Ditto the above. There are 2 points here: 1 is the science which is apolitical. The second is what action (or not) to be taken., which is political. If the fundamental premise is that there should be no action beyond market forces and that government should not be involved, then your premise is that no proactive government-level action should be taken. In that case, your view of the science is fundamentally irrelevant and we should simply all be adrift on the seas of economic forcing. Unless I understand you incorrectly, in which I would appreciate a correction in my understanding.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2016, 10:25:27 PM by Glenstache »

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #235 on: January 27, 2016, 10:45:32 PM »
why do we need to force it a few years earlier with subsidies? It will come regardless.

I never understand the basis for this claim, which typically amounts to "renewables don't deserve subsidies."
Nothing  a free market could reasonably supply deserves taxpayer support.

Exactly. The free market DOES NOT reasonably handle externalities such as pollution. Companies that are currently spewing CO2 into the atmosphere are NOT paying the real free market price of the cost of that CO2. Hence government needs to step in. Now, that can be with taxing CO2. It can be with subsidizing non CO2 emitting alternatives to level the playing field or it can be a combination of both.

A free market can handle externatlities such as pollution, so long at harm can be demonstrated.  With chemicals or waste, it's relatively easy to demonstrate harm.  As for CO2, that's incredibly difficult because even if everyone accepted that it was pollution, a tort case would still have to be presented to show actual harm.  I don't see how it can be done at this stage.  Models of future harm is not harm, CO2 is already present in all places, and has many natural benefits to it's presence.  If the glaciers melt and oceans rise, a harm can be established.  Even using the term "leveling the playing field" presumes there is an imbalance of some fashion, which I don't accept as a given.  No matter how you guys feel about it, the idea that CO2 is harmful, on net, is not self-evident.  That's what I keep asking you guys to demostrate, and you keep responding with well worn talking points and matters of opinion.  At least Sol does a pretty good job of educating me about the particulars of the science; be even he can't seem to wrap his head around the idea that a few degrees C rise in climate could be good for humanity, or even wild flora & fauna.  I bet the very concept seems rediculous to you, and you are inclined to reject it out of hand.  Don't let cognative dissonace get the better of you; stop and consider for a moment, could it be so?  And if so, what would that look like?  If you can get that far, then think about the best way to encourage those benefits while suppressing the harms.  Does that imaginary future, or the paths we could choose to get there, look anything like what has been proposed by any government agency, NGO or private environmental group?  Not that I can tell.  Think systems over goals.  Developing a policy that can improve our odds of achieving that better Tommorowland would be a system, while setting emissions reduction targets would be a goal.  The problem with goals is that there will usually be counter-parties with incentives to undermine (or simply ignore) the goal while presenting a cooperative front.  This was what the Paris talks were, theater.  Does anyone have faith that China or India wont cheat?  And if either were to cheat, can the goal be achieved with the participation of the remainder of the cosigners?  I doubt it, more likely it would just give China (or India) an comparative economic advantage over the other cosigners that they didn't have before, and as soon as the other cosigners realize that they have been hamstrung & cheated, they will also cheat.  A system would be to predict a "most likely" or 50th percentile outcome, and make long term plans to mitigate those harms.  For example; let's assume that a 50th% scenario tells us that oceans rise by 30 feet, temps increase by 2.5 degrees, and dominate wind patterns shift North by 5 degrees across North America over the nest 100 years. (I'm just pulling these out of my ass, so don't read too much into that)  What would we do differently if we assumed that this would be the outcome?  As far as policy, altering land use & zoning laws to presume this would be wise now.  We could require that permits for construction within the present 100 year flood plain +30 feet are required to get flood insurance as if they were in the floodplain; while banning electrical power distribution centers where the bottom of the electric service would be less than 30 feet above current sea level anywhere in the country.  This really only involves changing building codes for future construction, and not much, since sub-sea level grade power installations are already banned, because they would be idiotic.  Salt-water & electricity don't mix in a nice way.  We could also leverage state agricutural departments to get the information out to their base about different (or climate change hardened) crops that they might consider planting instead of their present crops, as ag departments further north start to advocate for crops grown in the state to their south.  We could offer tax breaks on several years of property taxes, for companies & individuals who own property within the projected tidal zones; in order to encourage them to move away from those areas.  There is already a 100% income tax deduction for capital losses if you sell a house for less than you bought it for, we could double the deduction for those who owned those homes in the tidal zone at (for example) January 1st of 2018.  This would cost less (not zero) to the taxpayers than using emminent domain to force 85 year old Granny out of her double wide a block from the beach in Florida, particularly since she's very unlikely to live long enough to notice.  For that thought, we could require that a climate change tidal zone check be done on all new home sales in coastal states; for the knowledge alone would slowly depress the value of coastal property over several decades.  Additional property tax riders could be applied to commercial property (hotels, etc) inside the projected tidal zone, and (hopefully) earmarked towards paying for the doubled capital losses provision; so in this way, the hotel owners who would stand to make a killing for several decades building and/or operating a beach front hotel in the projected tidal zone will be paying for their own tax deductions later, but at least the option to live or work in the tidal zone would still exist.  Another thing that we could do right now would be to eliminate tax breaks for petroleum exploration & investments, and let the energy market find it's own way.  We could reduce burdensome regulatory policies for the nuclear industry that don't apply to modern power plant designs; such as waving the massive site assesment process for a factory built reactor under 50 Mw, or the redundant pumping & containment regulations with regard to deep pool municipal heat reactors.  We could require that all future infrastructure projects in coastal states assess the climate risks; which would force us to build higher bridges over the InterCoastal Waterway, or not build new highway projects near the coast.  I could go on, as there are so many mundane ways to prepare for a future that will slowly arrive over generations; at least if you have a likely future that you can actually predict with plausible data.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #236 on: January 27, 2016, 11:07:37 PM »
It's only from underinformed members of the general public that we still hear "do nothing" proposals.

So inform us.  Last I checked, there was http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-do-you-believe-about-climate-change/msg806606/#msg806606 - but then someone ;) locked the thread.... :)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #237 on: January 27, 2016, 11:11:01 PM »
A free market can handle externatlities such as pollution, so long at harm can be demonstrated.  With chemicals or waste, it's relatively easy to demonstrate harm.  As for CO2, that's incredibly difficult

Harm has been demonstrated.  Approximately 1.4 degrees of harm and rising every year.

Atmospheric pollution is a tough one for the free market to price correctly, because the harm befalls lots of people other than the ones bearing the cost.  It's most profitable (i.e. market-favored) to burn carbon quickly and expect everyone else to pay for the cleanup.

Take the ozone hole as an example.  CFC propellants in commercial products were shown to degrade ozone and were causing a hole in the ozone layer.  There was no market to fix this problem, because CFCs were cheap and effective and the costs of a hole in the ozone layer didn't affect anyone who was buying those products.  So governments had to step in and ban CFCs, including funding research into alternatives.  We stopped spraying CFCs, and the ozone hole has recovered.  Government intervention solved a problem the free market could not.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #238 on: January 27, 2016, 11:25:48 PM »
It's only from underinformed members of the general public that we still hear "do nothing" proposals.

So inform us.  Last I checked, there was http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-do-you-believe-about-climate-change/msg806606/#msg806606 - but then someone ;) locked the thread.... :)

That's always the expected response when this particular lobby gets shown up by facts.  Just bury it and pretend it didn't happen, try again tomorrow with a different audience and hope the same scientists don't show up to refute you again.

Hi Moonshadow!  I'm back!

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #239 on: January 27, 2016, 11:30:41 PM »
A free market can handle externatlities such as pollution, so long at harm can be demonstrated.  With chemicals or waste, it's relatively easy to demonstrate harm.  As for CO2, that's incredibly difficult

Harm has been demonstrated.  Approximately 1.4 degrees of harm and rising every year.


Again, it has not been established that a few degrees of warming is actually harmful.

Quote

Atmospheric pollution is a tough one for the free market to price correctly, because the harm befalls lots of people other than the ones bearing the cost.  It's most profitable (i.e. market-favored) to burn carbon quickly and expect everyone else to pay for the cleanup.
Tragedy of the Commons, yes I know.  Tough it is, but not impossible.
Quote
Take the ozone hole as an example.  CFC propellants in commercial products were shown to degrade ozone and were causing a hole in the ozone layer.  There was no market to fix this problem, because CFCs were cheap and effective and the costs of a hole in the ozone layer didn't affect anyone who was buying those products.  So governments had to step in and ban CFCs, including funding research into alternatives.  We stopped spraying CFCs, and the ozone hole has recovered. Government intervention solved a problem the free market could not.
Government intervention did solve a problem.  It is not known if the free market could have solved it.  The issue of ozone depleting CFC's was not a market failure, because there was no opportunity for market choice.  And it's not even a given that this was an obvious win for government actions, since several of the CFC's that replaced them turned out to have great harm to other areas of the environment, such as turning out to be significant greenhouse gases in their own right.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #240 on: January 27, 2016, 11:31:45 PM »
It's only from underinformed members of the general public that we still hear "do nothing" proposals.

So inform us.  Last I checked, there was http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-do-you-believe-about-climate-change/msg806606/#msg806606 - but then someone ;) locked the thread.... :)

That's always the expected response when this particular lobby gets shown up by facts.  Just bury it and pretend it didn't happen, try again tomorrow with a different audience and hope the same scientists don't show up to refute you again.

Hi Moonshadow!  I'm back!

I didn't lock that thread because of your facts.  I locked it because of the hatred.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #241 on: January 27, 2016, 11:39:38 PM »

Carbon taxes are easy.  We just set a price per ton of emissions, and then give everyone in the country a tax rebate exactly equal to the per capita amount of revenue generated.  Presto, revenue neutral carbon tax with zero regulations, and we let the markets decide how to either reduce emissions or pay to pollute.  Nobody suffers.

You make that sound easy, but that is not what we would get and you already know it.  Because that is not what happened in Europe, is it?  Instead, they ended up with another political bureaucracy that was lobbied for political gain, that probably didn't accomplish anything at all.
Quote

Failing to control emissions with something like this means that in 30 or 50 or 100 years the problems get worse and worse and suddenly the government has to start banning whole industries that pollute the most.  Nobody wants that.
I'm still waiting for you to define "problems get worse", and show me how you came to those conclusions.  And no, your models that have to be adjusted by 8+ degrees to match historical data do not qualify as evidence.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8433
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #242 on: January 27, 2016, 11:42:41 PM »
It's only from underinformed members of the general public that we still hear "do nothing" proposals.

So inform us.  Last I checked, there was http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-do-you-believe-about-climate-change/msg806606/#msg806606 - but then someone ;) locked the thread.... :)

That's always the expected response when this particular lobby gets shown up by facts.  Just bury it and pretend it didn't happen, try again tomorrow with a different audience and hope the same scientists don't show up to refute you again.

Hi Moonshadow!  I'm back!

I didn't lock that thread because of your facts.  I locked it because of the hatred.

And then started another identical one?  What's changed that caused you to start a new thread, rather than unlocking and restarting the old one, which was full of useful information from a variety of perspectives and rather efficiently addressed all of the points that have thus far been raised in this new thread?

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #243 on: January 28, 2016, 12:56:22 AM »
It's only from underinformed members of the general public that we still hear "do nothing" proposals.

So inform us.  Last I checked, there was http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-do-you-believe-about-climate-change/msg806606/#msg806606 - but then someone ;) locked the thread.... :)

That's always the expected response when this particular lobby gets shown up by facts.  Just bury it and pretend it didn't happen, try again tomorrow with a different audience and hope the same scientists don't show up to refute you again.

Hi Moonshadow!  I'm back!

I didn't lock that thread because of your facts.  I locked it because of the hatred.

And then started another identical one?  What's changed that caused you to start a new thread, rather than unlocking and restarting the old one, which was full of useful information from a variety of perspectives and rather efficiently addressed all of the points that have thus far been raised in this new thread?

1) I don't agree that it's identical.  This one has much less condescension and personal attacks.  Less, but not zero.

2) I opened it because I was challenged to a debate by Jack; who at this point doesn't seem interested anymore, and I'm not sure he really thought I'd take him up on the challenge.  From what I can tell, we even have different worldviews upon what the term, "civil debate" actually means.

3) If I'm such a frustration to you, Sol, why do you bother?  You have repeatedly told me that you were done with me.  If you don't intend to actually try and understand the issues from my perspectives too, then it's be for the best if you'd just follow through with that threat and stick to it.

4) I don't want to unlock the old thread.  You still have the power to crosslink back to it if you desire.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11477
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #244 on: January 28, 2016, 01:33:45 AM »
It's only from underinformed members of the general public that we still hear "do nothing" proposals.

So inform us.  Last I checked, there was http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-do-you-believe-about-climate-change/msg806606/#msg806606 - but then someone ;) locked the thread.... :)

That's always the expected response when this particular lobby gets shown up by facts.  Just bury it and pretend it didn't happen, try again tomorrow with a different audience and hope the same scientists don't show up to refute you again.

sol, I was rather hoping for a response from you to the post above.  In brief, it seems the track record for temperature predictions really isn't all that good.  You mentioned things are improving, and that's good - the more feedback* the modelers get, the more accurate the models can be.  But there have been some very public predictions (e.g., ice-free timing of the arctic and Himalayan glaciers, etc.) that have been discredited, which doesn't help the "trust us, things are still ok now but in a while will be really bad" claims for other effects.

*Side note: just ran across http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ recently - that seems pretty slick.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8824
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #245 on: January 28, 2016, 02:02:06 AM »
A free market can handle externatlities such as pollution, so long at harm can be demonstrated. 
How does your notion of "a free market can handle externalities such as pollution?" work?  As far as I can tell, a free market doesn't handle externalities even when it kills off half its customers (big tobacco).  Please show your workings.  And do so without reference to government interventions such as taxes and legal systems creating liabilities to consumers.
Quote
Government intervention did solve a problem.  It is not known if the free market could have solved it.  The issue of ozone depleting CFC's was not a market failure, because there was no opportunity for market choice. 
So what were the potential market solutions for the hole in the ozone layer caused by CFCs?  Be creative.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17499
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #246 on: January 28, 2016, 06:20:26 AM »
MoonShadow - I'm reading along with your arguments but I am having a hard time understanding how companies could be dissuaded from putting CO2 into the atmosphere into a non-regulated free market should we accept (at least just for the moment) that CO2 is bad for the planet.

As you correctly pointed out, it is not a point-source pollutant, and tort law won't have much luck punishing companies for harm caused across international borders. If we don't attempt to control or even quantify the amount of CO2 being produced how could this work?

MasterStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2912
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #247 on: January 28, 2016, 07:08:55 AM »
No.  Taxes are, legitimately, only collected to fund the operations of government.  Investment into any sector of the economy does not qualify.  Government ownership of the means of production is, quite literally, the root definition of socialism.  If that is what you think should be the founding philosophy of modern nation states, despite history, feel free to lobby & vote for that.  If enough of the electorate agrees with you, you will get the government you deserve.

From the history of taxation (economist Richard A. Musgrave):
"In the absence of a strong reason for interference, such as the need to reduce pollution, the first objective, resource allocation, is furthered if tax policy does not interfere with market-determined allocations. The second objective, income redistribution, is meant to lessen inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth. The objective of stabilization—implemented through tax policy, government expenditure policy, monetary policy, and debt management—is that of maintaining high employment and price stability.

Quote
A free market can handle externatlities such as pollution, so long at harm can be demonstrated.  With chemicals or waste, it's relatively easy to demonstrate harm.  As for CO2, that's incredibly difficult because even if everyone accepted that it was pollution, a tort case would still have to be presented to show actual harm.

Really it can? Last October DuPont Co. was found liable for a woman’s kidney cancer in the first of 3,500 lawsuits over a toxic Teflon ingredient found in Ohio and West Virginia water. DuPont has known since 1984 that the chemical, C8, was getting into drinking water and even told employees living near the plant to secretly collect tap water from their homes and that water was found to contain the chemical. DuPont knew the dangers all along, and kept hiding them, even instructing employees in 1992 not to donate their blood because it was infected. In its defense, DuPont lawyer Damond Mace said C-8 isn’t harmful and isn’t regulated.

In your defense harm was eventually demonstrated (took 30+ years) and DuPont is going to have to pony up some dough. Meanwhile this woman and many others will pay with their lives. Score one for the free market (lack of regulations).


As far as Co2 being a pollutant or not, it's actually been decided.

The US Clean Air Act was incorporated into the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Title 42, Chapter 85.  Its Title III, Section 7602(g) defines an air pollutant:

"The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air."

More specifically Title 42, Section 7408 states that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator must publish a list of certain air pollutants:

"emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare"

In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007), the US Supreme Court held that the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. Two years after the Supreme Court ruling, in 2009 the EPA issued an endangerment finding concluding that:

"greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare....The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding."

One other question, why did the government have to step in to bail out banks and others during the 2008 financial crisis? Much, especially in the mortgage industry, a result of reduced regulations. Why wasn't it simply handled by the "free market" concept?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2016, 07:46:43 AM by BeginnerStache »

dramaman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 700
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #248 on: January 28, 2016, 07:53:52 AM »
why do we need to force it a few years earlier with subsidies? It will come regardless.

I never understand the basis for this claim, which typically amounts to "renewables don't deserve subsidies."
Nothing  a free market could reasonably supply deserves taxpayer support.

Exactly. The free market DOES NOT reasonably handle externalities such as pollution. Companies that are currently spewing CO2 into the atmosphere are NOT paying the real free market price of the cost of that CO2. Hence government needs to step in. Now, that can be with taxing CO2. It can be with subsidizing non CO2 emitting alternatives to level the playing field or it can be a combination of both.

A free market can handle externatlities such as pollution, so long at harm can be demonstrated.

Umm, no. The free market doesn't give a whit about harm to another. I can set up a factory next to a river and put all my sludge into the river, kill all the fish and make the water undrinkable and the free market will do nothing to stop me. If what you are referring to is the ability to bring a lawsuit against a polluter based on demonstrated harm, that is most definitely NOT the free market. That is also government intervention by means of the court system, not the free market. Lawsuits are indeed an alternative, but are an imperfect solution as their ability to stop harmful practices often occurs long AFTER the harm has already been done. That and is impractical so sue EVERY entity that is producing excessive CO2.

MoonShadow

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2542
  • Location: Louisville, Ky.
Re: Climate Change Talking Past Each Other Thread
« Reply #249 on: January 28, 2016, 12:18:50 PM »
There is a lot of confusion here about what a free market means.  I'm not going to get into that too deep, nor respond to everyone on every point.  I will mention that, if you guys wish to pursue this line of thought, please research the difference between a free market & and an anarchy.  I am not an anarchist.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!