Mar 172008

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS

At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.

This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:

Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.

Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.

Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.

(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)

 

10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”

  1. Peter,

    Here’s another link to clear up your misconceptions on solar impact on our climate:

    Erl Happ and Carl Wolk
    http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/
    “The notion that carbon dioxide has caused a temperature increase is not supported by the climate record or observation of temperature dynamics beneath the tropopause. Limiting carbon emissions will do nothing to stem the course of solar driven climate change. Modelling that begins with the assumption that influential parameters like ozone concentration, upper troposphere temperature and cloud cover are unaffected by solar activity, or that conditions in the troposphere are unaffected by QBO dynamics is devoid of value and has no utility whatsoever.”

    Max

  2. Hey Peter,

    Good of you to drop in.

    Hope you and your family are well.

  3. Max,

    I don’t think the guys at RealClimate have managed to do any better at explaining the science to you than I have, so I don’t feel too bad about it.

    I think your comment about ‘Tea Parties’ on the Spectator blog confirms that your opposition to the science is politically motivated rather than any intrinsic doubts about the science itself which, you’ll remember, is what I argued several months ago.

    You mentioned a figure of $ 1trillion per 0.05 degC of AGW. Just wondered where that came from?

    Brute,

    Yes thank you. I hope you are all well in the USA too. I’d like you to all be well, have healthy teeth, healthy bodies, healthy minds etc. I think President Obama would like that too, for all Americans, rich and poor alike.

  4. ALL: The interim report of the Royal Commission into the Oz Victorian Bushfires of 2009, particularly 7, Feb; “Black Saturday”; was published yesterday in 360 pages and with 51 recommendations. I’ll come to the AGW context later, but to put that recent tragedy into perspective, of the 173 human deaths, and (temporary) destruction of some beautiful mountain areas etc, it is informative to study the following map composite that I’ve constructed out of the report:. (In deep personal interest in my neighbourhood)

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3491/3833055696_afbb946cbc_o.jpg

    In terms of AREA burnt, historically, this was quite a modest fire season, but unfortunately on that particular day of very high winds, the swirling fronts in the mountains coincided in their strongest advance with some entrapped mountain townships, notably Kinglake and Marysville. (Two places that I love, and, to a fault, the people that lived there, were almost suicidal in their deep living immersion amongst their trees).
    If that windy day had come a few days later, or in a different direction, it might have been quite an ordinary fire season.

    The fires that I (more personally) remember vividly were those of 1987, but particularly on that windy day known as “Ash Wednesday“, which was huge in Victoria AND South Australia. At my place, there was a lot of smoke, and precipitation of burnt gum-tree leaves that rather caught my attention. A serious aspect of wind-blown wild-fires here is known as spotting, where embers are carried forward and start new fires kilometres in advance of the main front.

    Along the “Great Ocean Road”, west of Melbourne the 1987 devastation was terrible, but escape possibilities for people were good and many simply ran out into the sea. The biggest single human tragedy came when a weather front came through with wind direction change that trapped and killed 11 (?) fire-fighters. It also changed previously weak fire flanks into much broader strong fronts.

    TonyN, you were interested in my photos near where I live, of regrowth forest from the 1939 bushfires. Here they are again, and their location is shown on the map above relative to where I live etc, in green on the fringe of the 2009 burnt area.

    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3465/3274932761_dba098e177_b.jpg
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3482/3274932261_054898e6ec_b.jpg
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3378/3274931853_dc30cab635_b.jpg

    I nosied up there a month or so ago but that walking area was closed off, until declared safe….. Like one person was killed by a falling burnt tree. On the other hand, the famous black spur road above with its magnificent stands of trees appears to be only lightly damaged. I may try again this coming weekend

    Hey, I’ve gotta go and I’ll make it a two part post concerning climate change.

  5. I wonder whether the MSM, and particularly the BBC, will cover this?

    http://www.tfa.net/climateweek/about-climate-week.html

    Surely it is the young, and students in particular, who are supposed to be mindless adnerents to the cause?

  6. Thanks Bob.

    Although 1939 seems a long time ago, the regeneration that your pictures show is just a good example of the natural cycle of destruction and recovery. Nature is a very tough old boot indeed and for me, one of the great puzzles of our time is why we have come to think otherwise, and that everything must stay the same. I’m sick and tired of coming across ecologists who seem to think that the natural world is so fragile that it can only survive with their help.

    If you are wondering whether the Australian fires are on thread, and you probably weren’t, so far as I am concerned they most certainly are. So much publicity was given to them as a sign of AGW that I think that anything you can post on the subject is useful.

  7. TonyN

    thanks for your note on Pine Island. Where did it appear as I would like to reply?

    Thanks

    tonyb

  8. TonyB

    It wasn’t on the net but there is an email address for Burchard among the stuff that I sent you.

  9. TonyN, thanks your interest expressed in your 7131.
    It was a beautiful sunny day here today at 19C, so I popped up to the area of my pre-bushfire photos of yesterday, and I hope you don’t think I’m over-indulging, but please find these six new photos:

    Here are two photos with notes demonstrating the re-sprouting of eucalyptus trees:
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2610/3835755137_a6d5ce2b7f_o.jpg
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2480/3835755265_92ba8a5afe_o.jpg

    Here are three more shots with notes, showing more general recovery
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3579/3835755391_3cb44fe315_o.jpg
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3836545634_cd562ed551_o.jpg
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3433/3836545536_eecaf3f0e8_o.jpg

    Here is another of an area nearby unaffected by fire, with notes;
    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2640/3836545746_4ca31dd87e_o.jpg

    I do have some strong comments relative to alleged influence of climate change to follow, but I’ve run out of time today.

  10. An perceptive view of the AGW debate from an academic who is watching from the sidelines:

    Does Climate Catastrophe Pass the Giggle Test?

  11. Bob

    Great photos of the forest, and a very nice van too. It looks as though in just a few years time traces of the fire will only be discernible to specialist who are looking for them. As I said before, nature is as tough as old boots.

    I remember that the news coverage at the time of the fires was very strong on the ‘destruction’ of millions of acres of forest, which seemed strange when wildfires are a natural process in Australia and species have evolved to cope with it. There is a similar problem here when oil spills occasionally reach stretches of coastline. Press coverage is about whole ecosystems being ‘devastated’, which in a sense is true. But within a very few years total recovery takes place. This is never mentioned.

    Oil spills from shipping are not, of course, natural events in the way that bush fires are, but the thoroughly Darwinian ability of species to survive is just the same. After all it is their ability to adapt and survive that has earned them their place on the evolutionary ladder.

  12. Hi Peter,

    You wrote:

    I don’t think the guys at RealClimate have managed to do any better at explaining the science to you than I have, so I don’t feel too bad about it.

    It really wasn’t “explaining the science”, Peter. Ignoring some silly comments by various bloggers there, I did get Gavin Schmidt to take the bait concerning the climate model assumption of constant RH with warming. After a brief exchange, in which Gavin explained to me the difference between climate model “assumption” and climate model “result”, we basically agreed that the “result” was the climate model “output” based on the “input assumptions” made.

    When I inquired where the “empirical data” were to support the “input assumption” that RH remains constant with warming, Gavin cited links to several studies.

    I reviewed these studies in detail. One study gave a clear link between observations and model “results”, but several others did not provide such a clear link. Two studies told us that the link was poor, and that there might be problems (not with the model “assumptions”, but with the physically observed data). One stated clearly that RH does not remain constant with warming, but is diminished.

    On this basis, I did concede to Gavin that there was mixed support for a constant RH with warming based on empirical data. I also pointed out that the long-term NOAA site showing atmospheric water vapor content shows not only a reduction in RH since 1948 as the atmosphere has been warming, but even a drop in to tal water vapor content. He had no real comment to this, except to say that the NOAA results are based on “reanalysis” of “observed data” from satellites, balloons, ships, etc.

    So we left it there and “agreed to disagree”. There is apparently no agreement in the “scientific community” on whether RH remains constant or diminishes with warming. IPCC models assume this (although Gavin prefers to call this “model results”, rather than assumptions).

    Gavin believes RH remains constant with warming (based on the studies he cited which conclude this) and I believe that RH reduces with warming (based on the studies I cited which conclude this).

    Changing subjects, you wrote:

    I think your comment about ‘Tea Parties’ on the Spectator blog confirms that your opposition to the science is politically motivated rather than any intrinsic doubts about the science itself which, you’ll remember, is what I argued several months ago.

    Peter, I think you have drawn an incorrect conclusion, here. Tea Parties in USA today relate to the grassroots fear of many people that the current administration is spending more taxpayer money than it can afford to do, which will either mean that taxes will need to be increased or an even greater national debt will be passed on to their children and grandchildren. The meaning of “trillions of dollars” is beginning to sink in, and many people do not agree with these grandiose spending plans. The blogger there was referring to these “town hall meetings”, where many individuals expressed their fears about the proposed medical reform bill there. This appear to be the big issue. “Cap ‘n trade” was only mentioned in passing.

    But the reason I feel that “cap ’n trade” (or any other hidden or direct tax on carbon use) is foolish is intrinsically scientific: I do not believe that the empirical scientific data support the premise that there is an imminent threat from AGW. So far no one has been able to provide these data.
    should take seriously.

    From this comes my opposition to the policy decision to “mitigate” against a non-existent threat, with all the political and economic implications that this entails.

    Lastly, I know for sure that a “tax” would not solve an AGW problem even if there really were one, since it will do absolutely nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, just make everyone poorer.

    Get my logic now, Peter?

    The link to an op-ed about AGW and the “giggle test”, which TonyN cited in 7135,
    concludes:

    the claim that we now have good reason to expect climate change on a scale that will produce not merely problems for some but catastrophe for many is one that no reasonable person should take seriously.

    This summarizes my opinion on this, as well, for the scientific reasons that I have cited above.

    You asked:

    You mentioned a figure of $ 1trillion per 0.05 degC of AGW. Just wondered where that came from?

    I’ll come back to you with that in a separate post.

    Max

  13. Peter,

    You asked:

    You mentioned a figure of $ 1trillion per 0.05 degC of AGW. Just wondered where that came from?

    Based on a suggestion by James E. Hansen (of “tipping point” and coal train = “death train” fame), the proposal has been made that no new coal-fired power plants be built in USA starting in 2010 in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Let’s call this “Plan A”.

    Between 2010 and 2012 an average of 5,374 MW per year of new coal-fired power capacity was planned. Let’s assume that this rate would continue to 2050. This would be a total of 215,000 MW of coal-fired capacity that was not built. Over the 40 years (2010-2050), these plants would generate a total of : 215,000 * 8,500 * 40 * 0.5 / 1,000,000,000 =36.5 billion MWh of electricity.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html

    Coal-fired plants emit 0.91 mt CO2 per MWh generated.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/co2_report/co2report.html#electric

    So over the 50 years the proposal would eliminate 0.91 * 36.5 = 33.3 GtCO2.

    Assuming that 70% of this would have stayed in the atmosphere = 23.3 GtCO2.

    Atmosphere has a mass of 5,140,000 Gt.

    So Hansen’s proposal would reduce atmospheric CO2 by
    1,000,000 * 23.3 / 5,140,000 = 4.5 ppm(mass) = 3.0 ppmv

    And how much “global warming” would this plan eliminate?

    Let’s say by 2050 the atmospheric CO2 level would have continued to grow by 1.9 ppmv per year without this plan to 462 ppmv; but with the plan we have been able to reduce this by 3 ppmv.

    Using the IPCC’s average 2xCO2 impact of 3.2°C, this reduction in atmospheric CO2 would result in a temperature reduction of 0.03°C

    What would his proposal cost?

    Nuclear power plants cost around US$ 4,000 per kW to construct, whereas new coal fired plants cost around US$ 2,000 per kW.
    http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/Coal-fired_power_plants_capacity_to_grow_by_35_per_cent_in_next_10_years/21600/

    Each year 5,374 MW of new nuclear capacity would be required.

    Over the 40-year period, this would cost:

    4,000 * 1,000 * 5374 * 40 = $860 billion.

    And the investment cost, over the cost of building conventional coal-fired plants would be $430 billion.

    Per ppmv CO2 “reduced”, the plan would cost: 430 / 3 = $143 billion.

    This cost would be much higher, of course, if instead of replacing new coal plants with nuclear plants they were replaced by more expensive (and less reliable) “renewables” such as wind or solar power.

    So “Plan A” to stop new coal-fired power plant construction from 2010 on will not bring us very much in our struggle to reduce atmospheric CO2 content, stop global warming (and save the planet). And it will cost us far too much.

    But let’s go a step further with “Plan B” as both Hansen and Al Gore have envisioned.

    In addition to stopping new coal-fired plant construction, let’s shut down half of the existing coal-fired plants and replace these with the least expensive, non-carbon emitting alternate (nuclear plants).

    There are 1470 coal-fired plants today, producing 314,000 MW.

    So let’s say we shut half of these down by 2050, at the same time as we replace all construction of new coal-fired plants with nuclear plants.

    This will shift an additional 157,000 MW from coal to nuclear over the 40 years.

    Over the 40 years this will shift 26.7 billion MWh from coal to nuclear and reduce the cumulative CO2 generated by 0.91 * 26.7 = 24.3 GtCO2

    If 70% of this would have stayed in the atmosphere, this means a reduction in atmospheric CO2 of 0.7 * 24.4 = 17.0 GtCO2.

    How much did this reduce the total atmospheric CO2 content?

    Atmosphere has a mass of 5,140,000 Gt.

    So “Plan B” would reduce atmospheric CO2 by
    1,000,000 * 17.0 / 5,140,000 = 3.3 ppm(mass) = 2.2 ppmv

    And it would avoid 0.02°C global warming (at the IPCC 2xCO2 climate sensitivity of 3.2°C).

    What would his proposal cost?

    Nuclear power plants cost around US$ 4,000 per kW to construct
    http://www.engineerlive.com/Power-Engineer/Focus_on_Coal/Coal-fired_power_plants_capacity_to_grow_by_35_per_cent_in_next_10_years/21600/

    If we assume that it costs nothing to shut down and decommission the coal-fired stations, it would cost (over the 40-year period):

    4,000 * 157,000 = $628 billion

    Ouch! This is worse than “Plan A” to stop new coal-fired plants.

    The total investment cost of both plans is $1 trillion, for a theoretical reduction of global warming of 0.05°C by year 2050. That’s an awful lot of “bucks” for very little “bang”.

    And it only gets much worse if we replace nuclear plants with more expensive and less reliable “renewables” such as wind or solar.

    These are rough calculations, but the plans are obviously not a “good deal” that one could get every American taxpayer to support.

    Max

  14. Max,

    Maybe your economics is a little better than your climate science, and I would say that your figures are probably in the right ball park. So, let go with your claim of $1 trillion = 0.05 degC. (Using the value of the dollar in 2009)

    However, where you have gone wrong is in your final assumption. Which is, that because the figures seem high, they are also unaffordable.

    Since 1975, global warming has been approximately 0.17 degC per decade. According to your figures it would have required a spending of $3.4 trillion per decade to have prevented.

    Current world GDP = $55 trillion per year. $3.4 trillion/per decade works out at 0.6% of GDP.

    Even if we double, or even triple, all the costs to be on the safe side, the total cost of fixing the Co2 problem won’t be any higher than 2% of world GDP. Just a fraction of what is spent on armaments.

    It’s you guys who are making all the fuss about a relatively small amount of extra spending, which in itself will create new jobs new technology, and a much cleaner environment, in all our cities, who are the real alarmists.

  15. Max,

    “that the current administration is spending more taxpayer money than it can afford to do”. You can say the same about money spent on climate change or whatever. It isn’t just the “current administration” its been a feature of the American economy for the last 25 or more years. The American deficit is now so large that it’s not their problem, it’s the rest of the world’s problem. The Chinese and Gulf states who have recycled their petrodollars.

    But, I’d just say that if the theory that future generations will have to go without to repay debts were true, then the ’60’s ‘ generation of young people would have had a hard time repaying WW2 debts and the cost of Cold war spending. Instead, they were one of the most fortunate generations ever.

  16. PS If the US tea parties were just a protest by concerned tax payers about high government spending, rather than a right-wing political grouping, why are they only campaigning on health care and CO2 cap and trade?

    Why have they nothing to say about US military spending, which accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total?

    US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined. 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.

    That’s the real reason for the enormous US budget and trade deficits.

  17. Peter

    Ignoring everything else in your posts, are you comparing Maxs’ figures for the US against global GDP to get you 0.6% figure in 7139?

    Side note – I picked up a copy of Focus in the dentists this morning. Hidden away in and article about what would happen if a solar storm hit the earth were a few paragraphs saying the the sun may have contributed as much as 30% to global warming. Hardly MSM but was encouraging to read in a popular science mag.

  18. Peter:

    I’m not going to get involved in this one, but phrases like ‘the total cost of fixing the Co2 problem’ (#7139) do worry me. Such statements are not uncommon at the moment, but there is an awful lot riding on the assumptions that underpin this kind of thinking.

  19. Tony and Barelysane,

    Well yes I’m using Max’s figure of $1 trillion per 0.05 degC of AGW. It would the same for all developed countries – not just the USA. But, the rules need to set on the basis that the polluter pays to be fair.

  20. Peter,

    That’s not the point i was trying to make. Leaving the rest of the maths to one side.
    You’re using “GLOBAL” GDP to calculate % cost using Maxs’ US figures. That’s why your % is a little on the low side.

    I’m sure someone will correct me if i’ve got the wrong end of the stick here.

  21. Max has come up with a figure if $1 trillion to prevent 0.05 degC of AGW.

    I can’t see how that can be just a “US figure”. It would be the approximately the same for Europe, China, and India too.

  22. Hi Peter,

    I could return your favor by responding to your 7139/7140 with “your economics are just as screwy as your climate science”, but I will write instead that I believe you miss the point with your “% of world GDP” argument.

    Let me summarize from my standpoint.

    First (and this is the most important point). The premise that AGW is a serious threat, caused primarily by human emissions of CO2, is not supported by empirical scientific data, but rather by computer model outputs based on theoretical assumptions generally building upon the greenhouse theory. This is the “climate science” part of our debate (upon which everything else is based).

    Second. No “serious threat” = no need to “mitigate” against a “serious threat”. This is the “policy” or “political” part of our debate.

    Third: Even if there were a “serious threat” from AGW and the inflated IPCC predictions of CO2 climate sensitivity and resulting future temperatures were correct, the specific proposals that have been made in response to statements from Hansen/Gore to (a) stop all new coal-fired plant construction in the USA after 2010 and (b) shut down half of the existing coal-fired plants there by 2050 will have no significant impact on global temperature by 2050 (0.05°C) at an estimated investment cost of $1 trillion. This would be money poorly spent, i.e. these are poor proposals per se.

    You argue:

    Since 1975, global warming has been approximately 0.17 degC per decade. According to your figures it would have required a spending of $3.4 trillion per decade to have prevented.
    Current world GDP = $55 trillion per year. $3.4 trillion/per decade works out at 0.6% of GDP.
    Even if we double, or even triple, all the costs to be on the safe side, the total cost of fixing the Co2 problem won’t be any higher than 2% of world GDP. Just a fraction of what is spent on armaments.

    Is our planet worse off today (at 0.17°C warmer “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” than in 1975)?

    Or is it better off?

    Even had we been able to “prevent” this 0.17°C warming at this very high cost, would it have been a good expenditure or simply a waste of money?

    How many taxpayers of this world would have agreed to paying this amount of added taxes in order to support this global expenditure?

    My bet is that no one would have agreed to such a proposal, and, after all, we do live (primarily) in democracies, where people have some say for what their tax money will be spent.

    Now to the future: Will our planet be a better place to live if we have managed to reduce the warming by year 2050 by 0.05°C?

    Who will even notice a difference?

    How about if we spend ten times this amount of money and actually manage to reduce the warming by 2050 by 0.5°C, who will notice the difference? Will it have been “money well spent”?

    Let’s look at an “outlier”: what if the solar scientists are right in saying that the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity will now be followed by a very “quiet” sun, such as we had during the Maunder Minimum, so that temperatures drop naturally by around 0.8 to 1.0°C below 2000 levels by 2050. Will the added “cooling” of 0.5°C we have caused by our big expenditure have been a “good thing”? Will it have been a “worthwhile expenditure”?

    Peter, there are many worthwhile places to spend large sums of money, but the cost of “fixing” the CO2 “non-problem” would be money poured down a rat-hole and would only divert funds from these worthwhile projects.

    Even if we had unlimited supply of money and no other worthwhile projects on which to spend it, your argumentation is weak; spending large sums of taxpayer money on poor projects that have no measurable outcome is a waste.

    Each taxpayer will have better things for which to spend his/her money than giving it to the government to waste on silly projects that have no perceptible benefit to him/her.

    Max

  23. Max,

    Of course if the amount of warming were just 0.05degC it wouldn’t make much difference either way whether $1 trillion were spent to fix it. However, what if its 3 degs as the IPCC claim. What then? How much will it cost? $60 trillion at current day prices, as I understand your figures.

    Yes that’s a lot of money. Of course it is. Its slightly more than the current world annual GDP. But it will be spent continuously over the next century and so we are talking about an annual spend of the order of 1% of world GDP.

  24. Peter

    You wrote (7141):

    If the US tea parties were just a protest by concerned tax payers about high government spending, rather than a right-wing political grouping, why are they only campaigning on health care and CO2 cap and trade?
    Why have they nothing to say about US military spending, which accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total?
    US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined. 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
    That’s the real reason for the enormous US budget and trade deficits
    .

    Based on comments from another blogger (a U.S. lady) on another site and my response to her there you ask (about the US “Tea Parties” protesting against high government spending and, in particular, the proposed health reform plan): “Why have they nothing to say about US military spending, which accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total?”

    Not being a US tax protester, I cannot answer your “why” question, but let’s not look at “world total” right now, Peter. We are talking about the USA, where these “tea parties” are occurring.

    To say that these are being organized by a “right-wing political grouping” instead of by “taxpayers concerned about high government spending” is sticking your head in the sand, Peter. Some in the current US administration have fooled themselves that this is the case, but the more intelligent and astute ones realize that there is a real grassroots problem that needs to be addressed.

    Now to the amount of defense spending in the USA: The Congressional Budget Office tells us the US budget (2008) was broken down as follows:
    33% Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Unemployment, Health and Human Services
    21% Social security
    20% Defense, ”war on terror”
    17% “Non-defense discretionary” (other departments, state and international programs, etc.)
    9% Interest on debt

    So “defense” is 20% (not 48%) of total.

    Believe the new administration’s budget will be a bit lower in defense. If “health care reform” comes about, the “medical/welfare” part (already the biggest chunk) will increase substantially, and this is apparently where much of the “tea party protest” is directed, because the protesters fear that they will need to pay higher taxes (or incur an even greater national debt) in order to support this massive new expenditure. Those that already have medical coverage apparently fear that their benefits will be drastically reduced under a mandatory government plan, with “Washington, DC” deciding what cost will be covered.

    The “alternate energy bill” (including the “cap ‘n trade” effective tax on carbon) has not caused any “tea party” action as yet, because it is not very transparent to most US taxpayers (and is overshadowed by the health reform discussion).

    “Clean energy” and less dependence on Arab oil both sound like a “good deal”, and few people realize that there is a major new “tax” included in the bill, which will end up costing them dearly.

    “Let’s make the big oil and coal companies” pay for their “carbon footprint” sounds OK because few taxpayers realize yet that it is the consumer (i.e. they, themselves) who will end up paying every cent of “cap ‘n trade” in the end.

    Brute or one of the USA bloggers here might have better insight into all this than I do, but those are my impressions from what I see and read from the media on this.

    Max

  25. Peter,

    The “escalation” process is apparently in overdrive, here. You are now talking (7148) about averting “3°C warming by 2100 (as IPCC claims)” with a “price tag” of “$60 trillion at current day prices”.

    Peter, IPCC tells us that we have already caused a good portion of this future warming, which is stuck in some equilibrium pipeline, so no matter what we do now, we will see this part of the warming by 2100.

    Is this 50% or even more of the warming?

    If we look at the observed warming and actual CO2 increase over the 20th century, we see that the observed warming was only around third of what it should have been if the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity were really 3.2°C as IPCC projects.

    Therefore, either IPCC is off by a factor of three in its estimate of 2xCO2 climate sensitivity or two-thirds of the “equilibrium” warming to date (or slightly over 1°C) is still “in the pipeline”.

    This means that if we stop all CO2 emissions all over the world (i.e. shut down the world economy) we can avert 2°C of warming between now and year 2100.

    The “price tag” of shutting down the economy (and returning to the more pastoral life of our great-great-grandparents) would be equivalent to at least three-fourths of the world’s GDP or $40 trillion per year over the next 90 years (an astounding $360 trillion).

    Ouch!

    Peter, there is no way you can come up with any proposal to change our planet’s climate that makes any kind of economic or environmental sense, even if you believe in the premise that AGW is a serious threat, largely caused by human CO2 emissions.

    Fortunately, this premise is not valid, so your dilemma is solved.

    Max

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha