Cap and Trade

[Brian H]

Aero;
Since the “winners from carbon credits” are:
a) by definition mostly scammers and BSers;
b) making rapidly climbing billion$$ into the indefinite future off of subsidies and overpriced power schemes

I don’t give much odds, or have much stomach, for “bringing them on board” something which will cut their ill-gotten gains off completely. I’d much rather work with producers (like aluminum refiners), and victims of carbon credits (i.e., consumers), who will rejoice to see the “winners” crash and burn.

I personally just hope FF can kick in before too many billion$$ or even trillion$$ have been poured down the carbon mitigation sink hole.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

I personally just hope FF can kick in before too many billion$$ or even trillion$$ have been poured down the carbon mitigation sink hole.

Agreed.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
…invidious. You obviously have not looked at the evidence and quality of the work on climate prediction involved in the GW and Cap-And-Trade work. …
This has nothing like the science or accuracy associated with any of the science and math examples you gave. …
This is not science. I don’t know what to call it. But it wouldn’t be polite.
And CONSENSUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! The data is not there. The Emperors have no clothes.
About your graph, the less said the better. Not one of the assumptions underlying it can be justified.

I don’t think you believe that your comments are harmonizing? There was time when calculus was considered experimental. Climatology is still in its infancy.
You obviously have not looked at the list of cognitive biases before starting your analysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Confirmation bias — the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions.
There is more to science than data. There is also a method. If you want to form a scientific opinion independently I would suggest to use a proper method, not to narrow your scope with what confirms your preconceptions and not to include any bias in the analysis. There is possibly a lot of low quality work in any research, but the conclusions should statistically even out.

My (unscientific) opinion is that Weather will no be predictable at all because of the Chaos theory. I believe that scientists cannot currently predict the climate. Climate (long term) might be possible to predict if scientist find and are able to model all the factors responsible for climate change. I believe that all the factors and their importance in Climate Change are not currently known otherwise we had a proper model.
Co2 is one factor. We are able to measure it. We can predict it. Its importance is not measured yet, but we know it will go crazy in the future if something is not done. So the question is it wise to ignore this factor? If “97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming” I don’t think I can safely ignore them. Do you?

My graph had no assumptions. It is oversimplified. It has no actual data. Still it can prove that the costs can be set to low percentage, the build curve is exponential and the finish time-line is near, even with the current generation technology.

What about the big loser’s from carbon credits: Coal mines, oil industry, OPEC, plastic manufacturing anybody loves them? If co2 danger is real the winners are our children.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

…invidious. You obviously have not looked at the evidence and quality of the work on climate prediction involved in the GW and Cap-And-Trade work. …
This has nothing like the science or accuracy associated with any of the science and math examples you gave. …
This is not science. I don’t know what to call it. But it wouldn’t be polite.
And CONSENSUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENCE! The data is not there. The Emperors have no clothes.
About your graph, the less said the better. Not one of the assumptions underlying it can be justified.

…
Co2 is one factor. We are able to measure it. We can predict it. Its importance is not measured yet, but we know it will go crazy in the future if something is not done. So the question is it wise to ignore this factor? If “97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming” I don’t think I can safely ignore them. Do you?…

That “97%” is false. Climatologists and physicists and hydrologists all have different knowledge sets that need to be plugged in here, and climatology knows nothing other than what the very limited modeling is saying about CO2’s effects.

So we know no such thing as “it will go crazy in the future if something is not done.” CO2 absorption is now and has long been near its maximum. It’s an asymptotic function. Even multiplying concentrations by several orders of magnitude would only add fractions of 1% to its effects. It is irrelevant.

Consider that CO2 has been climbing for a couple of hundred years, and human contributions have only been measurable for about 60 years, and during that time temperature has trended down, and up, and down, and up, and down again. That is impossible under the “CO2” driver hypothesis. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY MAKE TEMPERATURE GO DOWN IF CO2 IS CONSTANTLY RISING? CO2 is NOT the driver.

The temperature patterns DO, however, match solar sunspot activity almost precisely. A much more plausible hypothesis, which is ARTIFICIALLY EXCLUDED from the IPCC models. Because the modelers were told by the IPCC managers to exclude it.

These are video games, not actual emulations of the climate system. Worthless.

[Phil’s Dad]

Breakable Posted at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM

“I think its(sic) pretty important to agree that there is no complete model of our planet, and scientists cannot predict (the) outcome to the changes in its atmosphere accurately, but if there is even a remote possibility that by a slight reduction (in) the quality of living a catastrophe can be prevented isn’t it a good idea to take that chance?”

A slight reduction in the quality of living for many people is death. The problem with so much legislation (proposed or enacted) is that it seeks to prevent developing nations, well, developing. If they are only allowed energy from sources they can not afford (i.e. renewables) then they must continue to do without. That costs millions of lives and that is the true cost of making the wrong decision “just in case”. One reason why FF is so important – living standards world wide can go up sustainably.

At 05:04 AM (that’s very late by the way – kids keeping you up?) he goes on to say “A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.”

Putting aside the “leanings and interests” of the people doing the survey that result is probably about the same percentage as thought the world was flat just before someone sailed around it.

What made me post though was the assertion at 06:42 AM that “Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on.” I can only presume that Breakable, generally a sensible chap, was by then very tired.
:-/

[JimmyT]

Well stated. But be careful about using the “everyone thought the earth was flat” argument. That is pretty much a myth. About anyone who could read realised that the earth was a sphere in the middle ages. What was controversial was whether the earth rotated around the sun.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
That “97%” is false. Climatologists and physicists and hydrologists all have different knowledge sets that need to be plugged in here, and climatology knows nothing other than what the very limited modeling is saying about CO2’s effects.

Do you believe its not being done already, do climatologists just ignore every other specialists when they go about their business?

Brian H wrote:
So we know no such thing as “it will go crazy in the future if something is not done.” CO2 absorption is now and has long been near its maximum. It’s an asymptotic function. Even multiplying concentrations by several orders of magnitude would only add fractions of 1% to its effects. It is irrelevant.

Take a look at this chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
What do you think is the result in 20, 50 or 100 years? Plants are surely going to love it, what about mammals?
How can you say what is or is not irrelevant, if you are not a scientist and don’t have a model that shows that this 1% is irrelevant when accounting for all the factors? I would like to point out that all those minor percentages do add up. In a bank with 4% savings rate you can double your funds in 20 years. And earth is a closed system – heat that is not radiated back to cosmos stays here. If you are saying that co2 absorption is maxed out and its the only factor that matters, then you should prove it. I don’t have any research in this area, but I would think that there are indirect ways that co2 can affect absorption.
Edit:20 years

Brian H wrote:
Consider that CO2 has been climbing for a couple of hundred years, and human contributions have only been measurable for about 60 years, and during that time temperature has trended down, and up, and down, and up, and down again. That is impossible under the “CO2” driver hypothesis. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY MAKE TEMPERATURE GO DOWN IF CO2 IS CONSTANTLY RISING? CO2 is NOT the driver.
The temperature patterns DO, however, match solar sunspot activity almost precisely. A much more plausible hypothesis, which is ARTIFICIALLY EXCLUDED from the IPCC models. Because the modelers were told by the IPCC managers to exclude it.
These are video games, not actual emulations of the climate system. Worthless.

I am not a scientist, I don’t have a model that shows how Co2/clouds/storms/humidity/solar cycles/earth rotation/planetary position/core nuclear reactions/ice coverage/industrialization/atmospheric_absorption is affecting earths climate. It seems you believe that we can safely exclude all the other factors except for sunspot activity. This is all a speculation, but lets say that sunspot activity (99%) is a driver and co2 is a contributor (1%). Now if we don’t have a contributing factor (co2) the temperature will rise and fall as it done for millions of years. If we do have a contributing factor it will additionally increase by 0.1 degree each year. So the question is here if we can afford the contributing factor and whether it is profitable to fix it (Cap & Trade).
In my opinion it does not matter weather Co2 is a driver or not. If it is a contributor and one we can profitably affect it is enough.

I would suggest that for the sake of this thread we do agree that Co2 is a problem, because if we don’t – it means that any discussion about Cap & Trade does not make any sense.

A discussion about Co2 link to climate change, might be better continued in a different thread, and preferentially in a forum where there are Climate scientist present which can point out and explain their models and any resent research that could be of interest.

[Breakable]

Phil’s Dad wrote: Breakable Posted at 24 September 2009 03:55 AM
…
A slight reduction in the quality of living for many people is death. The problem with so much legislation (proposed or enacted) is that it seeks to prevent developing nations, well, developing. If they are only allowed energy from sources they can not afford (i.e. renewables) then they must continue to do without. That costs millions of lives and that is the true cost of making the wrong decision “just in case”. One reason why FF is so important – living standards world wide can go up sustainably.
At 05:04 AM (that’s very late by the way – kids keeping you up?) he goes on to say “A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that 97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming.”

Well I don’t think I would like for anyone to perish because of me, but I don’t agree with your assertion. I understand that in most poor developing Africa’s countries 1 $ can mean a difference between life and death, but so can 1°C. In a developed country such as USA 1000$ or 10°C can serve the same purpose. In fact developing countries will be most affected by the global warming.
But they also have the greatest opportunities with renewable energy.
Take for example the story of http://williamkamkwamba.typepad.com/
or the design of http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4224763.html
Even the installation of inexpensive FF power might prove prohibitively expensive to a third world country for some time.
I do not think its a good idea to reduce the quality of living anywhere – if properly done carbon tax can instead slow down the speed at which quality of living is improving instead, and its increasing the fastest in developing countries.

Phil’s Dad wrote:
Putting aside the “leanings and interests” of the people doing the survey that result is probably about the same percentage as thought the world was flat just before someone sailed around it.

Well there are still people who believe the earth is flat in our time, and nobody can convince them otherwise:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Phil’s Dad wrote:
What made me post though was the assertion at 06:42 AM that “Consensus is much harder to form when there is nothing to test on.” I can only presume that Breakable, generally a sensible chap, was by then very tired.
:-/

I am well rested and awake now, but I still stand by this statement. It is much easier to disprove criticism when you can make experiments. Even such a wacky theory as Quantum physics has won full support using experiments. Who would believe that observers effect is real if you would not be able to demonstrate it? And you cannot do an experiment on the whole earth…

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

That “97%” is false. Climatologists and physicists and hydrologists all have different knowledge sets that need to be plugged in here, and climatology knows nothing other than what the very limited modeling is saying about CO2’s effects.

Do you believe its not being done already, do climatologists just ignore every other specialists when they go about their business? *

Brian H wrote:
So we know no such thing as “it will go crazy in the future if something is not done.” CO2 absorption is now and has long been near its maximum. It’s an asymptotic function. Even multiplying concentrations by several orders of magnitude would only add fractions of 1% to its effects. Irrelevant.

Take a look at this chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg **
What do you think is the result in 20, 50 or 100 years? Plants are surely going to love it, what about mammals?
How can you say what is or is not irrelevant, if you are not a scientist and don’t have a model that shows that this 1% is irrelevant when accounting for all the factors? I would like to point out that all those minor percentages do add up. In a bank with 4% savings rate you can double your funds in 20 years. And earth is a closed system – heat that is not radiated back to cosmos stays here. If you are saying that co2 absorption is maxed out and its the only factor that matters, then you should prove it. I don’t have any research in this area, but I would think that there are indirect ways that co2 can affect absorption. ***
Edit:20 years

Brian H wrote:
Consider that CO2 has been climbing for a couple of hundred years, [truncated for space] WHAT COULD POSSIBLY MAKE TEMPERATURE GO DOWN IF CO2 IS CONSTANTLY RISING? CO2 is NOT the driver.
The temperature patterns DO, however, match solar sunspot activity almost precisely. A much more plausible hypothesis, which is ARTIFICIALLY EXCLUDED from the IPCC models. Because the modelers were told by the IPCC managers to exclude it.
These are video games, not actual emulations of the climate system. Worthless.

I am not a scientist, I don’t have a model that shows how Co2/clouds/storms/humidity/solar cycles/earth rotation/planetary position/core nuclear reactions/ice coverage/industrialization/atmospheric_absorption is affecting earths climate. It seems you believe that we can safely exclude all the other factors except for sunspot activity. This is all a speculation, but lets say that sunspot activity (99%) is a driver and co2 is a contributor (1%). Now if we don’t have a contributing factor (co2) the temperature will rise and fall as it done for millions of years. If we do have a contributing factor it will additionally increase by 0.1 degree each year. So the question is here if we can afford the contributing factor and whether it is profitable to fix it (Cap & Trade).
In my opinion it does not matter weather Co2 is a driver or not. If it is a contributor and one we can profitably affect it is enough. ***
I would suggest that for the sake of this thread we do agree that Co2 is a problem, because if we don’t – it means that any discussion about Cap & Trade does not make any sense. ****

A discussion about Co2 link to climate change, might be better continued in a different thread, and preferentially in a forum where there are Climate scientist present which can point out and explain their models and any resent research that could be of interest.
* The few who write the IPCC reports, yes, pretty much. The examples are legion. The hydrologists are particularly contemptuous of the ignorance shown of the effects of the oceans and water cycles on climate, which are huge, arguably dominant.
** A typical example of distortion by data manipulation. The range and scale are selected to make the graph look steep, when it is not. It also begs the question about what the source of the rise is. The Earth has been warming since the Maunder Minimum, long before human industrial activity was significant, and warming seawater gives up CO2–which has also been rising since long before industrial activity became intense (generally pegged as early WWII, ~1940). With, be it noted, a LAG — it follows the warming by about 9 months. That, despite “feedback loop” double-talk by the alarmists, means it is an effect, NOT a cause. And a typical order-of-magnitude alarmist error: 22% in 50 years is a 0.4% compounding rate, not 4%. Which requires 180 years to double, not 20. Further, the slope of that progression shows no signs of being “compounded” (exponential). It is pretty much a linear progression. And 0.4% linear requires 250 years to double.
Since the IPCC models aren’t competent to predict even 1 year’s climate (actually they have shown no competence to predict at ANY time scale), using them to predict the non-linear climate 20, 175, or 250 years out is outrageous mendacity or ignorance.
*** So full of errors I don’t know where to start. I’ll just satisfy myself by pointing out that a 1% contribution does not = 0.1°/year unless it is a given that the temperature is rising 10°/year, which not even the most slavering Gore-ite claims. This time, the error is THREE orders of magnitude, even granting the other (erroneous) assumptions. 😆
**** Au Contraire!! That C-a-T is going to cost Trillions$ with NO detectable climate benefit is at the very core. Unless, like some of the investment hucksters who are circulating their promo newsletters, you are slavering to get some of that lovely money action–preferably leveraged by owning stock in a company with an inside track, like AlGore! What, exactly, do you think is worth discussing about C-a-T, if not its economic impact? Which is contingent upon its effectiveness–which, I argue, is deeply negative.

[Phil’s Dad]

JimmyT wrote: Well stated. But be careful about using the “everyone thought the earth was flat” argument. That is pretty much a myth. About anyone who could read realised that the earth was a sphere in the middle ages. What was controversial was whether the earth rotated around the sun.

Jimmy, I started out to say “I take your point” but then I thought “haaaang on -what percentage of the population could read in the middle ages?” So I think I’ll stick to my guns this time and use your earth round the sun thing in future.

Take care.

[Aeronaut]

Phil’s Dad wrote:

Well stated. But be careful about using the “everyone thought the earth was flat” argument. That is pretty much a myth. About anyone who could read realised that the earth was a sphere in the middle ages. What was controversial was whether the earth rotated around the sun.

Jimmy, I started out to say “I take your point” but then I thought “haaaang on -what percentage of the population could read in the middle ages?” So I think I’ll stick to my guns this time and use your earth round the sun thing in future.

Take care.

Applying the 80/20 rule to filter a population twice will show 4% of a population controlling the other 96%.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote:

Well stated. But be careful about using the “everyone thought the earth was flat” argument. That is pretty much a myth. About anyone who could read realised that the earth was a sphere in the middle ages. What was controversial was whether the earth rotated around the sun.

Jimmy, I started out to say “I take your point” but then I thought “haaaang on -what percentage of the population could read in the middle ages?” So I think I’ll stick to my guns this time and use your earth round the sun thing in future.

Take care.

Applying the 80/20 rule to filter a population twice will show 4% of a population controlling the other 96%.
And 4 times will show 0.16%. And eight times will show 0.000256%. And 16 times will show ~0.0000000007%. Which is 1/25 of one person! 😉

[JimmyT]

Yeah, there is a puzzling lack of written records from the middle ages left behind by the illiterate masses. Who knows what they believed?

Forgive me. I couldn’t resist.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Well stated. But be careful about using the “everyone thought the earth was flat” argument. That is pretty much a myth. About anyone who could read realised that the earth was a sphere in the middle ages. What was controversial was whether the earth rotated around the sun.

Jimmy, I started out to say “I take your point” but then I thought “haaaang on -what percentage of the population could read in the middle ages?” So I think I’ll stick to my guns this time and use your earth round the sun thing in future.

Take care.

Applying the 80/20 rule to filter a population twice will show 4% of a population controlling the other 96%.
And 4 times will show 0.16%. And eight times will show 0.000256%. And 16 times will show ~0.0000000007%. Which is 1/25 of one person! 😉

4% shows us how any population can easily be mis lead. I suppose another division will show us the top dog in charge of the environmental industry and it’s supporting pseudo-science? Perhaps he only has half a mind to do this, so we’ll divide again…

[Breakable]

Aeronaut wrote:

4% shows us how any population can easily be mis lead. I suppose another division will show us the top dog in charge of the environmental industry and it’s supporting pseudo-science? Perhaps he only has half a mind to do this, so we’ll divide again…

Lets narrow it down to one neuron

[Author]

Posts