tomclark,
It has been well known for a very long time that the solution of the problem of the commons is ownership.
So your argument is a straw man.
What you do is get the fishermen to bid on the catch. The most efficient can bid the highest. That conserves resources right there. Boats, fuel, nets, etc.
The others are going to have to find another line of work.
Dim Sun Anyone?
Tom,
To get back to climate: The AGW theory has been falsified.
CO2 is going up. Temps have been going down for 8 or 10 years. That sequence was not predicted.
QED - there are problems with the AGW theory.
In fact even the AGW scientists admit that they do not sufficiently understand adequately the #1 greenhouse gas - water vapor. So given that they do not understand 95% of what is going on how can they ascribe anything to the residual 5%?
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... t-off.html
There appears to be a rather large divergence between theory and measurement. And not just magnitude. The sign is wrong.
It only takes one.
To get back to climate: The AGW theory has been falsified.
CO2 is going up. Temps have been going down for 8 or 10 years. That sequence was not predicted.
QED - there are problems with the AGW theory.
In fact even the AGW scientists admit that they do not sufficiently understand adequately the #1 greenhouse gas - water vapor. So given that they do not understand 95% of what is going on how can they ascribe anything to the residual 5%?
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... t-off.html
There appears to be a rather large divergence between theory and measurement. And not just magnitude. The sign is wrong.
It only takes one.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Simon,
here you are.
Levitus et al 2008. Recent paper updating previous results, from authoritative people.
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/w ... heat08.pdf
Alas it is not an alarming simple graph extracted from data and and also all the issues involved are discussed carefully and at length. You might find that if you go to source data, and read the science, you treat blogs with a clear agenda more carefully? (Yours included, of course...)
Quite apart from this, note that there are known large amplitude decadal variablities from ocean currents which make establishing or refuting long-term trends from 5 year time series something that only idiots, politicians, or fraudsters would do with confidence.
You, I realise from the quality of your posts here, do not come into any of these categories.
Best wishes, Tom
here you are.
Levitus et al 2008. Recent paper updating previous results, from authoritative people.
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/w ... heat08.pdf
Alas it is not an alarming simple graph extracted from data and and also all the issues involved are discussed carefully and at length. You might find that if you go to source data, and read the science, you treat blogs with a clear agenda more carefully? (Yours included, of course...)
Quite apart from this, note that there are known large amplitude decadal variablities from ocean currents which make establishing or refuting long-term trends from 5 year time series something that only idiots, politicians, or fraudsters would do with confidence.
You, I realise from the quality of your posts here, do not come into any of these categories.
Best wishes, Tom
Quite apart from this, note that there are known large amplitude decadal variablities from ocean currents which make establishing or refuting long-term trends from 5 year time series something that only idiots, politicians, or fraudsters would do with confidence.tomclarke wrote:Simon,
here you are.
Levitus et al 2008. Recent paper updating previous results, from authoritative people.
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/w ... heat08.pdf
Alas it is not an alarming simple graph extracted from data and and also all the issues involved are discussed carefully and at length. You might find that if you go to source data, and read the science, you treat blogs with a clear agenda more carefully? (Yours included, of course...)
Quite apart from this, note that there are known large amplitude decadal variablities from ocean currents which make establishing or refuting long-term trends from 5 year time series something that only idiots, politicians, or fraudsters would do with confidence.
You, I realise from the quality of your posts here, do not come into any of these categories.
Best wishes, Tom
Well yes. And it is rather excessive to predict long term climate trends from a 30 year series. Or even a 150 year series. None the less it is incumbent on those who claim to be able to do so to explain why the data diverges from theory.
And it would be nice to see a direct refutation of Willis and Loehle. Where did they err? Why are their papers is such contrast to the one you mentioned?
Now about the water vapor problem. When do you suppose they will decide what the sign is? And when will they be certain (+/- 50%) what the magnitude is.
Note that the earth has never been in climate stasis. Suppose variability (glacials interspersed with interglacials) is actually a good thing in general. Which would make anything humans do to keep the planet warmer a bad thing.
Me? I'd like to see the next ice age (we are due) put off for as long as possible. If atmospheric CO2 helps (doubtful) I'd like to see a lot more of it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
And Tom,
Suppose the CO2 hoo ha is all about imputing to CO2 natural variations?
As you point out: there is no way to be sure. And it is an easy mistake to make.
We have seen that before. It used to be thought that illegal drugs caused mental illness. Now it is understood that mentally ill people self medicate their problems with illegal drugs. Correlation is not causation. Funny thing is that the scientific/medical consensus on this subject has radically changed in just the last three or four years. Could that happen with climate science? We do know that in the 80s we were in danger of global cooling from power plant soot emissions. So climate theory has already changed once.
And as to my supposed obtuseness on this subject. I'm an engineer. I'm sceptical of everything. With so many conflicting theories based on poor quality data I'm inclined to keep burning coal and oil until something better comes along. Lumborg says scientific advances will get us off carbon fuels around 2065 to 2100. The way to speed up that process is more research into energy generation. Trying to put an end to coal and oil prematurely is just going to get a lot of people killed. Billions. I'm against killing billions based on a theory that even its proponents claim is based on some shaky assumptions.
And in my capacity as an engineer I'm trying to move Polywell along as fast as possible to get a yes or no answer. I'm inclined to think it can work. But I'm far from certain.
Suppose the CO2 hoo ha is all about imputing to CO2 natural variations?
As you point out: there is no way to be sure. And it is an easy mistake to make.
We have seen that before. It used to be thought that illegal drugs caused mental illness. Now it is understood that mentally ill people self medicate their problems with illegal drugs. Correlation is not causation. Funny thing is that the scientific/medical consensus on this subject has radically changed in just the last three or four years. Could that happen with climate science? We do know that in the 80s we were in danger of global cooling from power plant soot emissions. So climate theory has already changed once.
And as to my supposed obtuseness on this subject. I'm an engineer. I'm sceptical of everything. With so many conflicting theories based on poor quality data I'm inclined to keep burning coal and oil until something better comes along. Lumborg says scientific advances will get us off carbon fuels around 2065 to 2100. The way to speed up that process is more research into energy generation. Trying to put an end to coal and oil prematurely is just going to get a lot of people killed. Billions. I'm against killing billions based on a theory that even its proponents claim is based on some shaky assumptions.
And in my capacity as an engineer I'm trying to move Polywell along as fast as possible to get a yes or no answer. I'm inclined to think it can work. But I'm far from certain.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The climate scientists test models against paleological timescales as well as 1000 years timesclaes and also last 100 years.
I agree, the whole of climate forecasting is difficult because of all these medium-term cucles - solar, ocean circulation, etc. But they are being understood more as time goes on, and the models getting better. And when oceans have known decadal oscillations taking five years of a time series which exists for 50 years would seem a little contrived?
Climate scientists debate the uncertainties, they publish papers at odds with each other, the aberrations get corrected with time and the truth (when it can be determined) emerges. Unlike pupulist paragraphs in blogs which make no attempt to reach a balanced opinion, regularly recycle old idiosyncartic and long corrected issues, and make no attempt to estimate best guess scenarios and uncertainty.
As for CO2 sensitivity the IPCC range 1.5 - 4 degrees per doubling of CO2 has been around for a long time and still looks good. But perhaps when blogs say this is not true and point to either un-peer reviewed literature or outliers which have subsequently been rebutted it would be best to follow them?
Take for example the famous Kockey Stick debumking. Were there problem s with the original data? Yes. Have these problems now been sorted out? Yes. Is the hockey stick still a goos summary? Yes.
Maybe CO2 has stopped next ice age and you, I, can be greatful. That is irrelevant to the threat posed by unprecedentedly fast and large warming.
You get to feel that anti-AGW advocates have a prior agenda when the arguments shift from:
No GW is occurring
to
GW is occurring but it is not AGW
to
GW is occurring and it is AGW but if US changes behaviour it will make no difference - so why bother?
The global political arguments about what to do are complex. But they cannot be sensible unless they are informed by the best possible science - that includes what we know and what are the uncertainties.
No effort is free of biass but given polemic web-site blogs or best-effort review of thousands of scientific papers which are diverse and from all shades of opinion I know which I prefer as a way to get closer to the truth!
Best wishes, Tom
I agree, the whole of climate forecasting is difficult because of all these medium-term cucles - solar, ocean circulation, etc. But they are being understood more as time goes on, and the models getting better. And when oceans have known decadal oscillations taking five years of a time series which exists for 50 years would seem a little contrived?
Climate scientists debate the uncertainties, they publish papers at odds with each other, the aberrations get corrected with time and the truth (when it can be determined) emerges. Unlike pupulist paragraphs in blogs which make no attempt to reach a balanced opinion, regularly recycle old idiosyncartic and long corrected issues, and make no attempt to estimate best guess scenarios and uncertainty.
As for CO2 sensitivity the IPCC range 1.5 - 4 degrees per doubling of CO2 has been around for a long time and still looks good. But perhaps when blogs say this is not true and point to either un-peer reviewed literature or outliers which have subsequently been rebutted it would be best to follow them?
Take for example the famous Kockey Stick debumking. Were there problem s with the original data? Yes. Have these problems now been sorted out? Yes. Is the hockey stick still a goos summary? Yes.
Maybe CO2 has stopped next ice age and you, I, can be greatful. That is irrelevant to the threat posed by unprecedentedly fast and large warming.
You get to feel that anti-AGW advocates have a prior agenda when the arguments shift from:
No GW is occurring
to
GW is occurring but it is not AGW
to
GW is occurring and it is AGW but if US changes behaviour it will make no difference - so why bother?
The global political arguments about what to do are complex. But they cannot be sensible unless they are informed by the best possible science - that includes what we know and what are the uncertainties.
No effort is free of biass but given polemic web-site blogs or best-effort review of thousands of scientific papers which are diverse and from all shades of opinion I know which I prefer as a way to get closer to the truth!
Best wishes, Tom
Simon,
I don't disagree with the other side. Wre will not give up oil until there are alternatives. Whether those come from much cheaper thin-film solar cells, or polywell, or something else i don't know. Let us throw effort at all of them (and enough money that the effort can proceed).
We will hit Mathusian limits eventually on this earth - so we might as well start trying to make a soft landing instead of the traditional catastrophic cycle. CO2 may not be the most pressing common pool resource that we need to manage - it is more worrying than most because of the long time constants inherent between what we can change and how it affects us. There are multiple long time constants. And you know better than most what that means!
Best wishes, Tom
I guess I am just naturally more optimistic than you. I really think we CAN do better than the easter islanders. And what we have is the possibility of sustained scientific effort over many years which can tackle even really complex problems like climate modelling.Suppose the CO2 hoo ha is all about imputing to CO2 natural variations?
As you point out: there is no way to be sure. And it is an easy mistake to make.
I don't disagree with the other side. Wre will not give up oil until there are alternatives. Whether those come from much cheaper thin-film solar cells, or polywell, or something else i don't know. Let us throw effort at all of them (and enough money that the effort can proceed).
We will hit Mathusian limits eventually on this earth - so we might as well start trying to make a soft landing instead of the traditional catastrophic cycle. CO2 may not be the most pressing common pool resource that we need to manage - it is more worrying than most because of the long time constants inherent between what we can change and how it affects us. There are multiple long time constants. And you know better than most what that means!
Best wishes, Tom
I really think we CAN do better than the easter islanders. And what we have is the possibility of sustained scientific effort over many years which can tackle even really complex problems like climate modelling.
I'm with you about getting better. The current question is are they good enough now to place trillion dollar and billion lives bets?
Considering that even climate scientists admit that they can't yet determine the sign let alone the magnitude of the water vapor term (which is 95% of the greenhouse effect) I'm not going to put any faith in current models.
Or consider ultraviolet radiation. That is not well understood either. In the models it is not computed from first principles (too complicated) it is parameterized. Now if it is too complicated to compute what are the odds that the climate folks got the parameter right?
As to Easter Island. Suppose we are doing the Easter Island thing to ourselves by limiting energy choices before suitable replacements are available? In other words: political stupidity. It would not be the first time a group of men have artificially consigned themselves to oblivion due to bad culture.
You worry about what too much CO2 may do. I worry about what destroying our energy supplies WILL do.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Simon,
Politically, energy supplies won't get destroyed. They may get more expensive. We can adapt. They may get more diverse. That means they are more robust and reduces severity of energy shocks.
The best thing for energy supply would be a sustained higher price for energy - then let the free market find which of the many other solutions works when it has real effort devoted to it.
Polywell, or one of the newer clean fission ideas, will be great if it works. I have to say that even if Polywell works getting cheap energy from it will be a formidable challenge - but you know that better than I.
I think you will find 99% of climate scientists are clear about the sign of the water vapour term, and that 1.5 - 4 degrees C per CO2 doubling is accepted by 95% as overall sensitivity range. But the 1% get disproportionate airing on blogs, despite contributing little to the scientific debate.
Politically, energy supplies won't get destroyed. They may get more expensive. We can adapt. They may get more diverse. That means they are more robust and reduces severity of energy shocks.
The best thing for energy supply would be a sustained higher price for energy - then let the free market find which of the many other solutions works when it has real effort devoted to it.
Polywell, or one of the newer clean fission ideas, will be great if it works. I have to say that even if Polywell works getting cheap energy from it will be a formidable challenge - but you know that better than I.
I think you will find 99% of climate scientists are clear about the sign of the water vapour term, and that 1.5 - 4 degrees C per CO2 doubling is accepted by 95% as overall sensitivity range. But the 1% get disproportionate airing on blogs, despite contributing little to the scientific debate.
All we have to do is double the cost relative to China and American industry will be destroyed. A lot of people will go hungry. That is not something I favor.They may get more expensive.
Look at what a doubling of oil prices did to the world economy. A lot of people will be going hungry.
And yes. We can adapt. Death from starvation, disease, and malnourished children will be the adaptation.
That is not what I would call a positive adaptation.
It reminds me of them German socialists from the 30s. They were willing to kill millions based on the fear of running out of land. Now we have Greens willing to kill billions based on the fear of CO2 and running out of energy.
So what would be a positive adaptation? Instead of killing energy supplies plant trees. I don't know why Greens consider that unacceptable. Unless it is their intention to kill billions for Gaia. It won't be the first time that religion (in this case Earth Worship) has led to mass murder.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I was not convinced of GW until the late 90s. The data seemed weak to me.No GW is occurring
From the late 90s to about 2002 or so that was was not my position. I was an AGW believer.to
GW is occurring but it is not AGW
Since them I've come to the conclusion that natural variation is being aliased into AGW.
That is valid even if AGW is true. The Europeans signed on to Kyoto and they did not even hold their CO2 emissions steady. In fact they rose at a faster rate than the Americans who did not sign on to Kyoto.to
GW is occurring and it is AGW but if US changes behaviour it will make no difference - so why bother?
So I ask you - if even the committed Europeans couldn't do it and in fact did worse than the Americans - what is the point? Not even to mention India and China and the rest of the developing world which will not sign on.
If you really care about CO2 trees are the low cost immediate answer. Strangling energy supplies will only hurt people. And you know I'm generally against hurting people unless they deserve it.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
tREES ARE THE ONLY ANSWER -
I am all for having a uniform carbon tax (with offsets) and letting the market decide how best to solve the problem. So if trees do this, i am all for it. I like trees anyway.
There are issues about trees however.
The carbon is probably not permanently removed - I don't mind about this - 100 years breathing space is worth buying.
The trees may be grown somewhere which would have been a carbon sink anyway, and so not help
It is still very debatable how much carbon trees sink. But that can be resolved. For example if you limit the decalred sink to be the carbon locked up in new wood above ground and have a transparent scheme for making sure the wood does not turn into CO2. (And insure against forest fires!).
Subject to all this (which may make trees less attractive) why not use trees? the arguments about this are probably political and to do with the fact that US can grow trees more easily than some other countries. I don't care about that and a uniform carbon tax, progresively increased over say a 20 year period to allow time to adjust, with carbon trading, would sort that out.
India & China know they will be worse affected by GW than most other countries - they will come on board such a scheme though there will doubtless be lots of politics first.
best wishes, Tom
I am all for having a uniform carbon tax (with offsets) and letting the market decide how best to solve the problem. So if trees do this, i am all for it. I like trees anyway.
There are issues about trees however.
The carbon is probably not permanently removed - I don't mind about this - 100 years breathing space is worth buying.
The trees may be grown somewhere which would have been a carbon sink anyway, and so not help
It is still very debatable how much carbon trees sink. But that can be resolved. For example if you limit the decalred sink to be the carbon locked up in new wood above ground and have a transparent scheme for making sure the wood does not turn into CO2. (And insure against forest fires!).
Subject to all this (which may make trees less attractive) why not use trees? the arguments about this are probably political and to do with the fact that US can grow trees more easily than some other countries. I don't care about that and a uniform carbon tax, progresively increased over say a 20 year period to allow time to adjust, with carbon trading, would sort that out.
India & China know they will be worse affected by GW than most other countries - they will come on board such a scheme though there will doubtless be lots of politics first.
best wishes, Tom
That is all dependent on how the law is written. After all Kyoto didn't allow trees.I am all for having a uniform carbon tax (with offsets) and letting the market decide how best to solve the problem. So if trees do this, i am all for it. I like trees anyway.
And as you point out: trees are subject to gaming. In fact the whole scheme is subject to gaming.
What is the best way? Work to get the price of low CO2 energy sources below that of high CO2 sources. The disadvantage to that is politicians will not be able to destroy economies and collect huge taxes. And there you have the very worst reason for the whole schmere. Politicians want the money and control who gets research funds. That does not seem conducive to honest science.
We have seen the same effect with respect to illegal drugs. The researchers who come up with the conclusion "drugs are bad" get funded. Those who come to other conclusions do not get funded. Why is that? Because the agencies "fighting" drugs control who can get the drugs for research. There is one scientist I know about who is likely to get the "wrong" answer who has been denied access to the drugs he needs for research for over 8 years.
From that aspect the whole edifice of AGW is suspect. There are a pair of papers I can point to if you are interested that come to the same conclusion despite opposite conditions. i.e. AGW will increase salinity in the North Atlantic and AGW will decrease salinity in the North Atlantic. Now - what ever happens can be attributed to AGW. Very convenient.
Jim Hansen (yeah THAT Jim Hansen) explains how the laws will be written:
What Jim fails to get is that no matter what the law it will be written "by people in alligator shoes." Which is another reason to be against any kind of tax scheme. The only honest way to do what you want is to put more effort into the research required to lower the cost of the alternatives. But that is a cost to government not a profit.Why is this cap-and-trade temple of doom worshipped? The 648 page cap-and-trade monstrosity that is being foisted on the U.S. Congress provides the answer. Not a single Congressperson has read it. They don’t need to – they just need to add more paragraphs to support their own special interests. By the way, the Congress people do not write most of those paragraphs – they are “suggested” by people in alligator shoes.
So who will get hurt in any such scheme? The people who can't afford to hire "people in alligator shoes." i.e. the poor the most and folks in the middle some.
There are ways to reduce CO2 output that would be a profit to the system and not a loss. As far as I can tell hardly any people on the AGW bandwagon are interested in either low cost or profitable schemes. It is all: turn off the power now.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
tom,
Longer growing seasons is a consequence if the AGW theory is correct. The greening of the Sahara is another consequence. Faster plant growth is a known consequence of increased CO2.
It may be that a warmer earth is actually more profitable than stasis or cooling. Cooling we know will be bad because it is hard to grow crops under ice. The Vikings found that out after they had colonized Greenland.
We have had an unusually cool start to the growing season here in the Mid West and crop production for this year is estimated to be 10% to 40% below normal.
Think of the consequences to the Green movement (which I favor in some respects) if they get it wrong. You already see this in Britain. CO2 taxes there are now commonly called a "wallet extraction scheme." It will taint every conservation scheme. Green will equal thief. In the USA with its recent cool spells that effect is well under way and we aren't even being taxed for CO2 yet.
Longer growing seasons is a consequence if the AGW theory is correct. The greening of the Sahara is another consequence. Faster plant growth is a known consequence of increased CO2.
It may be that a warmer earth is actually more profitable than stasis or cooling. Cooling we know will be bad because it is hard to grow crops under ice. The Vikings found that out after they had colonized Greenland.
We have had an unusually cool start to the growing season here in the Mid West and crop production for this year is estimated to be 10% to 40% below normal.
Think of the consequences to the Green movement (which I favor in some respects) if they get it wrong. You already see this in Britain. CO2 taxes there are now commonly called a "wallet extraction scheme." It will taint every conservation scheme. Green will equal thief. In the USA with its recent cool spells that effect is well under way and we aren't even being taxed for CO2 yet.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.