Cap and Trade

[Brian H]

HermannH wrote: …
If I remember correctly climate research wasn’t the major weapon that Maggy used in her clashes with the coal miners. Maggy was a trained chemist. This science background allowed her to see that perhaps there was a nugget of truth behind the concerns of climate researchers at the time.

But how about this ‘grassroots’ movement: Philip Morris wanted to discredit an EPA report that found that second hand smoke is harmful. The advice they got was to create the impression of a grassroots movement that fought against government over-regulation. They also got the advice to throw in a few other issues to make it look more authentic http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2:

AGW

By May 1993, as another memo from APCO to Philip Morris shows, the fake citizens’ group had a name: the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. It was important, further letters stated, “to ensure that TASSC has a diverse group of contributors”; to “link the tobacco issue with other more ‘politically correct’ products”; and to associate scientific studies that cast smoking in a bad light with “broader questions about government research and regulations” – such as “global warming”, “nuclear waste disposal” and “biotechnology”….

TASSC’s headed notepaper names an advisory board of eight people. Three of them are listed by Exxonsecrets.org as working for organisations taking money from Exxon. One of them is Frederick Seitz, the man who wrote the Oregon Petition, and who chairs the Science and Environmental Policy Project. In 1979, Seitz became a permanent consultant to the tobacco company RJ Reynolds. He worked for the firm until at least 1987, for an annual fee of $65,000. He was in charge of deciding which medical research projects the company should fund, and handed out millions of dollars a year to American universities. The purpose of this funding, a memo from the chairman of RJ Reynolds shows, was to “refute the criticisms against cigarettes”. An undated note in the Philip Morris archive shows that it was planning a “Seitz symposium” with the help of TASSC, in which Frederick Seitz would speak to “40-60 regulators”.

The same Seitz that circulated the above mentioned Oregon Petition:

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the “review” that followed Seitz’s letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson’s organisation – the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine – and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson’s 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

If you read the article in its entirety you may understand why I alternate between laughing and cringing every time I see you mentioning that politics and money rule in the AGW movement.

I will repeat the question I asked above; perhaps you will care to have a go at answering it:

“Examine again that geological image above ( http://www.biocab.org/Climate_Geologic_Timescale.html ) For literally hundreds of millions, indeed billions, of years CO2 and temperature went their separate ways. What changed when human CO2 release commenced? “

I did look at the graph and I cannot explain it, and neither can you. I do not know what other factors were dominant for the respective time periods. Perhaps some climatologists have explanations for some of the periods.

When human CO2 release commenced the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere started to increase. The extra amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about half of what was released in the last 200 years the rest ended up in the oceans. This has already led to increased ocean acidification: http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13314

Perhaps you show me the courtesy and read the links that I provided and comment on them. And I do hope your response is relevant and not just a one-liner.

I’ve seen most of that material before. It is irrelevant, in the sense that NOTHING changed when humans started emitting CO2. As the paper referenced above notes, there is NO statistical correlation between the patterns of human CO2 emission and the pattern of changes, and an EXTREMELY significant relation to oceanic changes PRECEDING the CO2 changes.

The point of the geological graphs is that they demolish any concept that CO2 “drives” temperature. It is unrelated, except insofar as oceanic temperature increases or reduces CO2 stores.

“A correlation (Chapter 5) between the annual increase of the CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere and the mean annual global temperature anomalies was demonstrated and human
emissions were found to be insignificant … too
insignificant to be measured due to the large natural variations. “

-cont-

[Brian H]

-cont-

Strawman attacks on a few hundred thou of funding by a few sources you disrespect are disingenuous, also, compared to the 10s of billions of dollars going to innumerable institutions and firms to bolster the AGW case. The very livelihoods of the principal proponents of the IPCC case depend on that massive flow of money.

(Not to mention that Gore has multiplied his personal wealth by 1-2 orders of magnitude on its back, and stands fair to make it to 3.)

‘Incompatible Facts’
Global temperature dropped when human CO2 first surged in the ’40s to ’70s. It has dropped again since ’98, during the highest ever output period. Those data, however fudged, are TOTALLY incompatible with calling CO2 “forcing” or a “driver”, much less THE forcing driver, as the IPCC does.

CO2 is not “forcing”, and human CO2 emissions are irrelevant.

[Brian H]

Here is a recent summary by one of the world’s first and most prominent PhDs in Climatology (who has received numerous death threats for his views):

Water Vapour, Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere
Politics of Climate Science: Selective Research, Ignored Facts.
Author
Dr. Tim Ball
Monday, July 27, 2009

Marston Bates said, Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind. But what happens if a research alley is avoided or ignored? Often the answer is in what is ignored, not what is presented. It’s an unacceptable practice in science and only indicates the political nature of the climate change research and debate.
Why is the Most Important Greenhouse Gas Ignored?

We should change the name of the planet from Earth to Water. It covers much more of the surface than land, makes it unique from the other planets, and without it life as we know it would not exist. Search for water is a constant theme in space exploration.

Despite all this what we actually need is more knowledge about water and its functions on Earth, especially with regard to weather and climate. All the emphasis is on temperature, but what happens to precipitation is far more important for plants and agriculture. Precipitation is mentioned in claims of increased droughts with global warming, but it’s a scare tactic and illogical. Warmer temperatures mean more moisture in the air with more precipitation potential, not less. The illogic eludes notice because of lack of understanding of the role of water in atmospheric processes.

Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere.

Generally the public is unaware water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume and CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually ignored. Here is a web site devoted to greenhouse gases (GHG) but water vapor, by far the most abundant and important one is listed under “other.”

Consider a major scientific error in lesson information for Biology 301 at Oregon State University. Water vapor is listed under “Other trace gases” while CO2 has its own section. It says warming means more evaporation and more water vapor in the atmosphere. “Whether this will amplify or dampen warming is unclear, as the effects of water vapor in the atmosphere depend on the droplet sizes and their height in the atmosphere.” This is wrong. Water droplets are not water vapor; the first is a liquid the second a gas. Water droplets as clouds influence the weather, usually causing cooling. The role of clouds are a major failure of the computer climate models. Why is water vapor ignored? Part of the answer is excessive, deliberate and political focus on CO2. Part is because water is taken for granted and few are aware of the unique physical and chemical properties that make it different from most other elements [compounds] on the planet.

Few know water vapor percentage varies more in the atmosphere than any other gas. It’s almost zero percent at the poles and 4 percent at the equator. [The] Percentage changes significantly from region to region and in a matter of hours. But these are vague figures – the reality is we have very little information about actual amounts. Global temperature measures are very limited and inadequate as Anthony Watt’s work shows. But precipitation and atmospheric moisture measures are worse. An August 2006 Science article titled “Waiting for the Monsoon” notes Africa’s network of 1152 weather watch stations, which provide real-time data and supply international climate archives, is just one-eighth the minimum density recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Furthermore, the stations that do exist often fail to report.

Satellites offered hope with a system that measured sunlight reflected by water vapor molecules, but measurement error was very high. They claim that is reduced. After years of sustained research efforts into the accuracy of atmospheric water vapor measurements, researchers from the U.S. Department of Energy’s ARM Program have succeeded in reducing measurement uncertainties from greater than 25% to less than 3%.

This looks promising but it is only a reduction of uncertainties. Regardless, an accuracy of three percent is inadequate to support the claims made about the role of greenhouse gases, especially CO2. But this won’t resolve the almost complete lack of any historic record.
A Positive Feedback that is Actually Negative

There’s a problem even if you accept the assumption an increase in CO2 will cause a temperature increase. The atmosphere is almost saturated with respect to CO2’s capacity to delay heat escape. A good analogy is the objective of blocking light coming through a window. A single coat of paint will block almost all the light and is like the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Second and third coats block very little more light just as doubling or tripling CO2 will cause very little temperature increase. This created a dilemma for the theory that a human increase in CO2 would create significant warming.

It was supposedly resolved by claiming an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase that causes increased evaporation putting more water vapor in the atmosphere. Now the most important greenhouse gas they essentially ignored received attention. Temperature increases projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) depend totally on increased water vapor. It is known as a positive feedback and is at the center of the debate of climate sensitivity. [However] Evidence shows the positive feedback is wrong and climate sensitivity is overestimated. Negative trends in [water vapor blocking] as found in the NCEP data would imply that long-term water vapor feedback is negative—that it would reduce rather than amplify the response of the climate system to external forcing such as that from increasing atmospheric CO2.

-cont-

[Brian H]

-cont-

But this is not surprising because as Lord Monckton notes,

“… the laboratory experiments in which evaluation of the CO2 forcing is attempted are of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere.” And of the claim that,”… the 3.7Wm–2 CO2 forcing at doubling is determined by the underlying physics” he says. “If only it were!”

Reality Provides the Ugly Fact.

All computer models have the positive feedback mechanism built in so warming predictions are no surprise. The problem is the real world is not cooperating. Richard Lindzen demonstrated this clearly at the Third International Conference on Climate Change, (June 2009). He presented this diagram that compared model predictions (top left graph) with real world data.

http://tinyurl.com/WaterCO2TempGraph

As Lindzen noted, “What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong.” He then identified the real problem. “In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own – quite removed from science.”

Thomas Huxley said, “The great tragedy [miracle] of science – the slaying of a beautiful [an ugly] hypothesis by an ugly [a beautiful] fact.” The hypothesis that human CO2 is causing warming is slain because they essentially ignored the role of water vapor in the atmosphere, but when used it was done incorrectly. Of course, none of this speaks to clouds, the other major water problem in the atmosphere for the global warming hypothesis and computer models. Now the world is in a blind alley with energy and economic policies based on predictions from climate models that omit major elements and use false assumptions.

[HermannH]

I suppose you copied from this news group post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/browse_thread/thread/fe1c81de19d19899?pli=1

The world’s first and most prominent PhDs in Climatology?
http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball:

… over the course of his career Ball published four pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change. Ball has not published any new research in the last 11 years.

And there seems to be some controversy about his credentials. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/dear_tim_ball_sue_me.php :

According to Ball’s website he was not a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years. And how could he have? He did not even have an entry-level PhD until 1983, that would allow even Assistant Professor status. During much of the 28 years cited, he was a junior Lecturer who rarely published, and then spent 8 years as a geography professor.

Ball sued over the newspaper article where this comment was printed and later ended up withdrawing the suit:
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents
The world’s first and most prominent PhDs in Climatology? I think not!

Sorry to be so negative about an individual, but you asked for it. Back to the science. If you scroll down you will find this response to his post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/2205be33438972f5
A quick web search comes up with this page that picks apart a similar argument here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/

The main points are these:
1. CLIMATE MODELS DO INCLUDE WATER VAPOR
2. If you remove all water vapor and clouds you still absorb about 34% of the long wave radiation, and conversely, if you only have water vapor and clouds you absorb 85%. Thus the effect of water vapor and clouds is between 66 and 85%, which is quite different from the often quoted 95%. And what is the ‘by volume’ qualifier all about, except to confuse the reader?

[HermannH]

Brian H wrote:

Strawman attacks on a few hundred thou of funding by a few sources you disrespect are disingenuous, also, compared to the 10s of billions of dollars going to innumerable institutions and firms to bolster the AGW case. The very livelihoods of the principal proponents of the IPCC case depend on that massive flow of money. …

Strawman attack? I am pointing out that a major player in the global warming debate has a history of selling his science name for dubious research for tobacco companies. As you may recall tobacco companies countered real scientific findings that linked smoking to lung cancer with their own junk science and confused the public for years if not decades.

The very same strategy was used in the global warming debate and even some of the same scientists (e.g Seitz) and fake grassroots organizations were involved.

[Brian H]

More trivial ad hominem stuff. Fuggedaboudit. The IPCC predictions have failed every test. End of story.

[Henning]

Brian: Exposed to too much Bush propaganda?

[HermannH]

Brian: I am still amused by your characterization of Timothy Ball as one of the “world’s first and most prominent PhDs in Climatology“.

I dare you to compare his wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball with that of James Hanson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

Ball’s page mainly consists of his “Views on environmental change”, a list of public appearances and a list of publications. Notice that there are a total of two entries after 1984, one of them is about “Houston, Mary (2003), Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay” and neither of the two is published in a peer reviewed journal.

Also notice that the longest section is labeled “Views“. Yes that’s right, his opinions are his claim to fame, not any significant scientific work he has done himself.

Hanson’s page is more than 5 times as long. There are long sections detailing his scientific work, all of it related to the study of climate. I don’t know whether he has received any death threats but he has been arrested while participating in a protest. Sounds to me like a man acting out of conviction not out of greed.

Oh, BTW, his list of publications can be found here http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/authors/jhansen.html
You may notice that by the time Ball received his PhD in Climatology Hansen had published dozens of papers on climate related topics. And all of them published in peer-reviewed journals.

When it comes to prominence in climatology, on a scale of 1 to 10 I would rate Hansen a solid 10 and Ball a 5; and that is mostly for notoriety, not original contribution to the field.

[Henning]

Take a look at the talk given by James Balog where he presents time lapse photographs of various glaciers around the globe.

That’ll make it more perceptible and comprehensible by seeing it with one’s own eyes.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

[Brian H]

Glaciers have expanded and shrunk throughout history; the IceMan crossed the Alps during a melt period that allowed movement through the passes. Many glaciers shrink when precipitation falls, which may occur at any temperature range, and grow when precipitation increases, likewise.

Irrelevant to AGW.

[Brian H]

Getting back to C-a-T, since the advent of FF will render all the CO2 generation issues moot, the value of carbon credits will rapidly move to 0. Since CO2 is and will ultimately be proven and acknowledged to be beneficial to agriculture, etc., perhaps C-a-T can be modified to run in reverse: i.e., accumulate and sell credits for generating as much CO2 as possible, despite the un-economic nature of power generation using coal, etc.
🙂 🙂 :cheese: 😆 ;-P

P.S. In case you missed it, they’re attempting to get in the first test shots TODAY — right now, or actually as of an hour ago!!
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/test_shots_may_be_fired_todayplease_stand_by/

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: Getting back to C-a-T, since the advent of FF will render all the CO2 generation issues moot,

Ah! I see the problem here. For you, C&T;only applies to carbon trading, and so, instead of talking about the economics of cap and trade in general, you go into these climatology debates. These two are somehow inseperable for you.

Then you’re hoping for focus fusion to rescue us from this whole GG issue.

So…let’s pretend it has. The issue is no longer carbon, or greenhouse gases. But C&T;remains! Now, some people want to use a cap and trade scheme to better distribute water in a desert, and use focus fusion plants to desalinize, but still, people will have to pay for the water rather than use historic water rights.

So, would cap and trade be a sound economic way to transition the water rights distribution scheme? Can we think of a problem along those lines? Or will we get mired back in the gases?

P.S. In case you missed it, they’re attempting to get in the first test shots TODAY — right now, or actually as of an hour ago!!
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/test_shots_may_be_fired_todayplease_stand_by/

Yes, but the shots can’t be fired before a few more things happen, which they’re hoping to get done today…but still it’s not a sure fire. Steady…steady.

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote: …Since CO2 is and will ultimately be proven and acknowledged to be beneficial to …/

Well this can become another highly controversial topic afterward FF will make global warming obsolete, but I don’t think I would still be interested in the debate.

[Brian H]

Rezwan wrote:

Getting back to C-a-T, since the advent of FF will render all the CO2 generation issues moot,

Ah! I see the problem here. For you, C&T;only applies to carbon trading, and so, instead of talking about the economics of cap and trade in general, you go into these climatology debates. These two are somehow inseperable for you.

Then you’re hoping for focus fusion to rescue us from this whole GG issue.

So…let’s pretend it has. The issue is no longer carbon, or greenhouse gases. But C&T;remains! Now, some people want to use a cap and trade scheme to better distribute water in a desert, and use focus fusion plants to desalinize, but still, people will have to pay for the water rather than use historic water rights.

So, would cap and trade be a sound economic way to transition the water rights distribution scheme? Can we think of a problem along those lines? Or will we get mired back in the gases?

P.S. In case you missed it, they’re attempting to get in the first test shots TODAY — right now, or actually as of an hour ago!!
https://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/test_shots_may_be_fired_todayplease_stand_by/

Yes, but the shots can’t be fired before a few more things happen, which they’re hoping to get done today…but still it’s not a sure fire. Steady…steady.
Like I said, C-a-T can maybe be run backwards to maximize CO2 output, which is what’s needed. A target of 1,000-2,000 ppm would be good!

Water rights will also become moot. Desalinization and other water purification and pumping options will open up with FF.

C-a-T is based on a fundamental error: that someone owns global rights to X,Y, or Z and can sell them (without becoming hopelessly mired in political and financial corruption). The consequences will be not just unintended, but perverse. The Law: you get less of what you tax. And C-a-T is intended as a tax on overuse or misuse, but ends up as a tax on use, period.

[Author]

Posts