…not to mention Jim Hansen. Is it the new Nazism? Thoughts over at AdamSmith.org.
47 thoughts on “Speaking Of Climate Change”
I was thinking that the AGW scam is more similar to middle age indulgences than anything else. Just substitute the alarmists for the priests and you’re all set.
Hey! Did you come up with that too? I was thinking the same thing. (About the indulgences). Where’s our Martin Luther to stop the eco-madness? š
He’s a retired Canadian named Steve McIntyre.
I think that cap-and-trade is designed to make traders rich and to make congressmen able to get money and power. See how Kyoto actually worked as an example. Cap-and-trade will probably not even reduce global CO2.
Carbon tax, with offsetting changes to make it revenue neutral, would probably work far better at reducing CO2 without crippling the world with government micromanagement.
This preference for a carbon tax over cap-and-trade is common among economists; for example, Greg Mankiw keeps a tally of members of the “Pigou Club” who advocate that.
I strongly disagree with Hansen et al on the need or feasibility of reducing CO2 emissions. Yet, in this one case, I agree with Hansen that the best available way of actually reducing CO2 if needed is to use the free market’s operation under a carbon tax.
Actually, I heard it somewhere along the line during the last week or two and it stuck in my mind. Very appropriate.
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming is that if climatologists are right we don’t have any time to ponder. We’ve been screwed for a while and we’re growing more-so by the minute. If they’re right, well, the sun is a big heat pump and the various systems being pumped aren’t easily slowed down. It doesn’t do anybody any good to be able to say, some day, “I told you so!” if future generations are facing an Earth that’s far less habitable.
Some questions to ponder:
1. Are all climate researchers who determine that mankind is causing global warming falsifying their results? If so, how long have they been doing it?
2. What are the stakes if anti-AGW forces are correct? What are the stakes if AGW climate researchers are correct? Similarly, what are the odds?
3. Who are the anti-AGW interests and what do they have to gain? Who are the AGW interests and what do they have to gain?
* I should have written “heat source” instead of “heat pump”.
Dave Klingler wrote: “Are all climate researchers who determine that mankind is causing global warming falsifying their results? If so, how long have they been doing it?”
Even if the answer to this question is no, it says nothing about the single thread by which the AGW narrative hangs. If you’re serious about understanding the real threat of CO2, then you need to seek the answer to just one question: is there any real-world evidence that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system (i.e. the mechanism that amplifies a less than 1C āmolehillā into a greater than 4C āmountainā)?
From my reading of the IPCC reports and even RealClimate blog, the answer to this question is “we don’t really know but the models tell us it must be true”, which is why the current AWG narrative invokes the ‘precautionary principle’.
The simple truth is that the most important step of the Scientific Method ā make a prediction and perform an experiment/observation to demonstrate/falsify it ā has yet to be performed*, yet people are preparing to force upon us major economic and social changes that will likely impoverish the global population and, worst of all, perpetuate human suffering in the third world.
*Some would say it has because the predicted āhot spotā 10km above the equator seems to be missing and so appears to falsity the theory.
P.S. Rand, I’m sorry I keep repeating the same old thing throughout these threads but I really do think that if people could recognize these few simple facts, then much of the argument would be seen to be just so much ‘hot air’… pun intended :-).
“It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming statism is that if climatologists libertarians are right we donāt have any time to ponder. Weāve been screwed for a while and weāre growing more-so by the minute.”
Fixed that for you.
I toured the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC recently, after having read some blog posts about what “we” should do with the Deniers — should “we” put them on trial, and execute them?
It was a little unnerving going through the exhibit which followed a young Jewish boy’s chronicle of the gradual transition from regular citizen to death camp denizen. We’re at an early in the same process, but that process is moving forward.
Dave Salt:
** Keep saying it. **
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming is that if climatologists are right we donāt have any time to ponder.
Not all climatologists are saying this. And those that are, don’t know enough to justify the statement.
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming is that if climatologists are right we donāt have any time to ponder.
And if the 2012=doomsday crowd is right, we have even less time. . oh, but wait, they’re not.
The evidence for either anthropogenic or catastrophic climate change is fundamentally nonexistent. It is solely a faith-based political movement at this point, and has been for some time now.
Dave Salt wrote: “Even if the answer to this question is no, it says nothing about the single thread by which the AGW narrative hangs. If youāre serious about understanding the real threat of CO2, then you need to seek the answer to just one question: is there any real-world evidence that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system (i.e. the mechanism that amplifies a less than 1C āmolehillā into a greater than 4C āmountainā)?”
Okay, fine. We can make predictions based on models but nobody’s been able to do a demonstration. Let’s assume that your requirement is a reasonable one. On the surface, demonstrating that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system seems difficult without a possibly globally fatal experiment. Instead, for the purpose of this dialog, what kind of odds, on a strictly personal level, do you, Dave Salt, give the AGW narrative of being correct?
1 in 10? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? If you went to Vegas and bet against the AGW guys, what kind of odds would you figure?
“…people are preparing to force upon us major economic and social changes that will likely impoverish the global population and, worst of all, perpetuate human suffering in the third world.”
I can’t resist observing that your conjecture sounds a bit alarmist.
The global population is ALREADY impoverished. Regarding human suffering, is it your thesis that a forced transition to energy sources other than wood, coal and oil will cause the suffering of humans in the third world to rise? Can you explain?
Please address my second two questions:
2. What are the stakes if anti-AGW forces are correct? What are the stakes if AGW climate researchers are correct? Similarly, what are the odds?
3. Who are the anti-AGW interests and what do they have to gain? Who are the AGW interests and what do they have to gain?
2. What are the stakes if anti-AGW forces are correct? What are the stakes if AGW climate researchers are correct? Similarly, what are the odds?
The odds are irrelevant. Science is about explaining what actually happens; predicting is a form of testing the explanation, nothing more. When it becomes a matter of driving public policy it becomes politics, not science, and the question of who’s right (as opposed to, who can win the argument — far from being the same thing goes out the window. The pro-AGW dogmatists you call “climate researchers” brought this on themselves by trying to drive policy.
3. Who are the anti-AGW interests and what do they have to gain? Who are the AGW interests and what do they have to gain?
Wait — I thought we were all on the payrolls of the insurance industry, now you’re telling us we’re also on the payrolls of the oil companies?
Somebody’s been intercepting my paychecks!
McGehee, you reprinted both of my questions and then declined to answer either of them. I think they were valid and reasonable questions in the context of any discussion of AGW. Given your observation that all climate researchers who stipulate AGW are “pro-AGW dogmatists”, I’ll take that as an indication that any pro-AGW data is irrelevant before it is presented where you’re concerned.
In the absence of a definitive answer, which can only be obtained by waiting to see what happens, odds are often appropriate in science; my experimental physicist father would have argued that virtually every answer in science should be couched in statistical terms. You’re right, though; in this case, they’re pretty much entirely speculation. We’re left with the choice of an answer that can’t be obtained except by waiting for a possibly intolerable outcome, or completely subjective odds. The stakes, if we are to believe atmospheric chemists, are as high as they have ever been.
Regarding my second question, I didn’t tell you anything. I didn’t even imply.
Dave Klingler write: “On the surface, demonstrating that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system seems difficult without a possibly globally fatal experiment.”
No, it isn’t. If the models reflect the real-world system then a good scientist should be able to work out some unique signature that we could test today (e.g. the ” hot spot” in the equatorial troposphere).
You cannot argue the science so you hide behind the precautionary principle by asking me “what what kind of odds would you figure?”. Well, just suppose I figure that the current AGW narrative is a 100% certainty, then what would I do?
The answer, which also covers your 2nd question, is to apply a strategy of ‘adaptation’ rather than ‘mitigation’, which is the currently favored approach. Mitigation means preventing the growth of third world counties by denying them access to cheap energy, which in turn will perpetuate their already impoverished state — I regard this as genocide by inaction! Moreover, even the most draconian acts of mitigation — bar the removal of humans from the face of the planet — will still result in significant levels of climate change and so begs the question “is it worth it?”.
Adaptation, on the other hand, will more likely enable us to cope with the worst impacts of climate change, while enabling improved conditions in the third world. Moreover, if the AGW narrative is wrong, it leaves us with legacy technologies that will still be of some benefit to our future well-being.
So, maybe I shouldn’t be so negative about the ‘precautionary principle’, just the way that it’s currently being sold (i.e. mitigation). There, is that sufficient an answer to misdirect people away from the original question?
Let me give a try:
2. What are the stakes if anti-AGW forces are correct? What are the stakes if AGW climate researchers are correct? Similarly, what are the odds?
If the anti-CAGW forces are correct, and we take steps to address a non-problem, growth will be stymied, if not downright negative for years. Billions of otherwise preventable deaths will occur. Massive unemployment will be the norm. Advancement in fields such as medicine, housing, agricultural, and most high technology will either halt or reverse course. Political unrest will unfold. There will be increases in crime and other sociological pathologies such as alcholoism, drug abuse, and spousal battery. Riots will blossom in the streets, and not a few governments will fall. Warfare over control of what vital resources are left will erupt. In the worst case, full civilizational collapse could ensue.
If the CAGW advocates are correct, and we do nothing, we will get small increases in temperature, and we will adapt.
The odds of these things happening given the assumed circumstances are almost certain.
The odds of CAGW are small. The odds of no CAGW are concomitantly large. This is my own judgment, but the defense would detract from the previous points so, I demur from presenting it at this time.
3. Who are the anti-AGW interests and what do they have to gain? Who are the AGW interests and what do they have to gain?
The anti-CAGW interests are every man, woman, and child who wants a good life, and a better life for their children.
The CAGW interests are every anal retentive sod who thinks his or her poo vanishes when he or she flushes the toilet, believes that choices do not require trade-offs, and is a supreme egotist who cannot wrap his or her mind around the vastness of even this one tiny world relative to his or her own self. What they have to gain is a smug assurance in their own self-righteousness, and sustenance of the delusion that the world revolves around them.
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming is that if climatologists are right we donāt have any time to ponder.
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to religion is that if Muslims are right we donāt have any time to ponder — if you die an infidel, you will burn in hell forever. And 1.2 billion people have “signed the petition.” We must all embrace Islam — now!
See the problem here? Don’t you think that the answer isn’t just “doing something,” in a perceived crisis, it’s “doing the right something”? (Or doing nothing, if for example the crisis doesn’t really exist.) As Sir Humphrey Appleby said on “Yes, Prime Minister” …
“Politician’s logic: We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.”
I wrote: āOn the surface, demonstrating that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system seems difficult without a possibly globally fatal experiment.ā
Dave Salt wrote: “No, it isnāt. If the models reflect the real-world system then a good scientist should be able to work out some unique signature that we could test today (e.g. the ā hot spotā in the equatorial troposphere).”
I.e. build a climate model, test it against reality, do the difficult science and buy the vast computing power necessary to keep adjusting the model until it works. We’re doing that now. The model matches in some places.
Dave Salt wrote: ‘You cannot argue the science so you hide behind the precautionary principle by asking me āwhat what kind of odds would you figure?ā. ‘
Certainly not. I won’t try to argue the science because I am not a climatologist. But then, if I were a climatologist, anything I said would be dismissed as Nazism or dictatorial dogma or a get-rich conspiracy, wouldn’t it? For the sake of this dialog I will be glad that I am not an expert.
Dave Salt: “Mitigation means preventing the growth of third world counties by denying them access to cheap energy, which in turn will perpetuate their already impoverished state ā I regard this as genocide by inaction!”
The first observation that I have is that third-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy. Petroleum has almost always been tightly controlled, and energy costs are only going up. The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Secondly, the only way that third world countries will ever get cheap energy is if the West + China develops it first. That’s a fact, and it’s happening already. This is an effect of capitalism. A strong market has been created.
Manufacturing costs for solar cells have now dropped below a dollar a watt, efficiencies have climbed to 42%, and every forecast I’ve read indicates that progress will continue. Likewise, I’ve never seen more progress in fusion than in the past three years. People are finally starting to realize that we can rely on other materials and methods for fission than the ones we invented sixty years ago. Thanks to big IGBTs and ceramic bearings, wind and wave power are finally viable. Storage technologies are enjoying a renaissance, in large part because of the automobile market. I get several materials science newsletters, and the progress changes daily for the same reason. The changes in materials science are nothing short of jaw-dropping. Everything is about to get much, much lighter, electric motors included.
Cheap energy will not come from oil, gas or coal. Third World countries do not have enough soldiers or diplomats to secure their oil supplies. Cheap energy for Third World countries can ONLY come from other sources.
Then again, your characterization of the energy needs of the Third World needs updating. Third World development is shaping up to be far more efficient than ours. They’re installing wireless mesh infrastructure first, using solar-powered cell phones and tablets for internet access, building highly-insulated houses, and when they get around to building more roads their vehicles will have regenerative braking. Look at where Google is doing most of its wireless deployment: Africa. We’re being leapfrogged.
Dave Salt wrote: ‘Adaptation, on the other hand, will more likely enable us to cope with the worst impacts of climate change, while enabling improved conditions in the third world. Moreover, if the AGW narrative is wrong, it leaves us with legacy technologies that will still be of some benefit to our future well-being.’
Dave. No. Your characterization of the worst impacts of climate change is off by orders of magnitude. You are vastly underestimating the power our local star dumps on us every day. I have planetary geologist friends who in all seriousness sit around and calculate tipping points using major asteroid impacts as energy references. If anything will make you blink…
Already, in geological terms, I’m not exaggerating when I say we’re in the middle of a global mass extinction.
This post has gotten pretty long. To sum up
– We have all the pieces we need to reinvent our way of life and make it better without sacrificing anything.
– Historically, new and more efficient products have always brought monetary gains, new markets and more new technologies
– The technologies that are being invented are relevant and beneficial to the Third World.
– The costs of adaptation dwarf the costs of mitigation, especially so given that mitigation stands to be a technological windfall.
– And for those of us that are interested, all of these technologies are required for space travel.
Bart:
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
“build a climate model, test it against reality, do the difficult science and buy the vast computing power necessary to keep adjusting the model until it works. Weāre doing that now.”
No, the analysis has really only showed that anything we are experiencing now humans in the past have already experienced and effectively dealt with already.
“if I were a climatologist, anything I said would be dismissed as Nazism or dictatorial dogma.
Oh, boohoo, the world’s smallest violin plays, whoa is me.
“The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Sounds like you need to realize how supply and demand works. Those that have it sell to those that need it. Besides, the UN is trying to side step all this by saying that the biggest contributors to global warming are destrying 3rd world ecosystems and therefore need reimbursements to offset their loses. In other words, your just advocating stealing from the rich and giving to the poor so as to spread the wealth.
“I get several materials science newsletters, and the progress changes daily for the same reason. The changes in materials science are nothing short of jaw-dropping.”
Yea, progress is good! Let market forces work out which technologies actually fill the needs the actual people wish and desire. Don’t artificially construct pie in the sky ideals of how everyone is supposed to live and tyr to make a wonder product that no one wants. If it is a product or service that produces meaningful and worthwhile results then well, people will buy it. Again, study supply and demand and then get a clue.
“Cheap energy will not come from oil, gas or coal.”
The fact of the matter is that all the so called “green” technologies only account for 3 percent of our energy production. So, in fact cheap energy is a result of petroleum. Sounds like to me you think some magical energy tree is going to sprout a cool looking magazine cover. Most peope would just assume living in reality to keep the lights on and have petroleum do it for the mean time. Furthermore, I ‘d be willing to wager that any socio-economic problems that exhist withing 3rd world countries are more the result of the local governments of these respective governements self serving the interests of their dictatorial or fascists regimes and less so the interests of their own people. Give people the freedom to innovate and pursue the means of of rightful productive wealth and I am certain you will find a group of so called 3rd world countries doing everything in their power to secure so called cheap means of energy production.
“Your characterization of the worst impacts of climate change is off by orders of magnitude.”
In poker there is a such a thing called a tell. You just showed that you have no idea what your talking about and have little understanding of what a positive feed back is. If the global climate as we know it was so susceptible to these alleged tipping points then how the hell are we even here today? The fact of the matter is that the very climate charts the the AGW proponents have been floating around have every bit of evidence we need in them to dispute the very claims they are trying to make. In otherwords, everything we are seeing today in terms our climate, we have been able to record as to having occured at some time in the past, while humans were living. Many of these trends can be paralleled many times even withing the last 250 years. People adapt, they change and they do what it takes to survive. They didn’t need to a TARP fund or a stimulus to do it either.
“I have planetary geologist friends who in all seriousness sit around and calculate tipping points using major asteroid impacts as energy references.
LoL Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the primary result of any calculated tipping point may have been THE FREAKING ASTEROID IMPACT!!! My god man, you want to debate this complicated subject yet this shows you have so relevant perspective on anything. Get a grip!
“Iām not exaggerating when I say weāre in the middle of a global mass extinction
LOL! Warm climate periods are generally linked to some of the most diverse ecological times of our world. And they are historically advantageous to humans in general. Put the bong down and get a grip on reality brother.
The first observation that I have is that third-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy. Petroleum has almost always been tightly controlled, and energy costs are only going up. The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
This is simply incorrect. Petroleum is not tightly controlled and never has been. Plenty of oil and LNG go to less developed countries (there’s no true undeveloped country aside from Somalia and even they get petro).
Already, in geological terms, Iām not exaggerating when I say weāre in the middle of a global mass extinction.
While true, what does that matter? It’s worth noting here that the vast majority of the species that are dying were marginal to begin with. How much should we coddle lifeforms that have overspecialized, are too delicate, and have a ecological range that one can walk through in a day? Especially if they would have died anyway in a few millennia? Also we have no idea about the natural extinction rate in the absence of human intervention. The fossil record would vastly understate extinction rates since as far as I can tell, most species never get fossilized.
– We have all the pieces we need to reinvent our way of life and make it better without sacrificing anything.
Sheer conjecture. Not based on fact.
– Historically, new and more efficient products have always brought monetary gains, new markets and more new technologies
Broken window fallacy.
– The technologies that are being invented are relevant and beneficial to the Third World.
So are the technologies that they would replace. What isn’t being replaced is the lost economic activity that results.
– The costs of adaptation dwarf the costs of mitigation, especially so given that mitigation stands to be a technological windfall.
Conjecture, not based on fact. Truth is that adaptation is cheap. It’s a lot easier to move people and infrastructure than claimed. For example, the US and it’s current infrastructure appeared over the course of a century. There’s no reason that we can’t over the course of a few centuries adapt to any climate changes that occur. Less viable land slowly loses value while more valuable land gains. People move. It’s not a significant problem.
– And for those of us that are interested, all of these technologies are required for space travel.
That’s nice, but higher economic activity and the current technologies are also a benefit to space travel and other uses of space.
Finally, as I’ve said elsewhere, if the precautionary principle had to eat its own dogfood, it’d never be implemented. It is a dangerously wrong risk assessment. In particular, I see no reason for the talk about human extinction from global warming. No one has ever seriously proposed a mechanism by which that would happen. Using the precautionary principle to enforce this vague hysteria is simply another example of why it shouldn’t ever be used.
Klinger, I think my label for your pro-AGW types was just as reasonable as your
anti-AGW forces
juxtaposed to your warm and fuzzy
AGW climate researchers
You don’t even see your own bias there, do you?
“Weāre at an early in the same process, but that process is moving forward.”
Molon Lave.
Josh Reiter wrote: ‘No, the analysis has really only showed that anything we are experiencing now humans in the past have already experienced and effectively dealt with already.’
No national or international scientific body of import agrees with you.
āThe idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Josh wrote: “Sounds like you need to realize how supply and demand works. Those that have it sell to those that need it.”
Or rather, want it and are willing to pay for it. Like I said…
Josh wrote: “Besides, the UN is trying to side step all this by saying that the biggest contributors to global warming are destrying 3rd world ecosystems and therefore need reimbursements to offset their loses. In other words, your just advocating stealing from the rich and giving to the poor so as to spread the wealth.”
Not sure where you got any of this. Actually, I’m advocating selling new technologies we already have or will predictably perfect soon to third world nations, which is the only way they’re going to get the cheap energy in question.
Josh wrote: “Yea, progress is good! …Again, study supply and demand and then get a clue.”
I’m sure the words “supply and demand” don’t mean at all what you think they mean. In the case of energy, we’ve artificially subsidized the costs of the currently popular energy sources. Remove the subsidies and the free market would most likely choose different solutions which are, coincidentally, more advantageous for us as a species in the long run.
āCheap energy will not come from oil, gas or coal.ā
Josh wrote: “The fact of the matter is that all the so called āgreenā technologies only account for 3 percent of our energy production.”
No argument here. See above.
Josh wrote: “So, in fact cheap energy is a result of petroleum.”
Historically, yes, but that’s not set in stone, nor am I sure that it’s been true for approximately the past forty years.
Josh wrote: “Furthermore, I ād be willing to wager that any socio-economic problems that exhist withing 3rd world countries are more the result of the local governments of these respective governements self serving the interests of their dictatorial or fascists regimes and less so the interests of their own people.”
Again, no argument here, Miss South Carolina. Irrelevant, though.
“Give people the freedom to innovate and pursue the means of of rightful productive wealth and I am certain you will find a group of so called 3rd world countries doing everything in their power to secure so called cheap means of energy production.”
You idealist, you. Hmmmm. Iran makes that argument…
Josh wrote: “If the global climate as we know it was so susceptible to these alleged tipping points then how the hell are we even here today?
The questions I’ve presented here relate to prudence, not to a lack of volcanic activity or asteroid impacts in recent geological history. I’m certainly not in any way alleging that we’re anywhere near a tipping point, only that climatology should be taken prudently.
Josh wrote: “The fact of the matter is that the very climate charts the the AGW proponents have been floating around have every bit of evidence we need in them to dispute the very claims they are trying to make.”
I applaud your can-do attitude, and I wish you luck in your new profession. No sane person on the planet wouldn’t love to see you succeed in turning the majority of the geophysical establishment on their heads, most especially including the heads’ owners.
The relevant question is, given the number of intelligent people who have seen this data and believe differently, how many lives are you willing to bet that you can successfully dispute their claims?
Josh wrote: “LoL Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the primary result of any calculated tipping point may have been THE FREAKING ASTEROID IMPACT!!! ”
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that any asteroid impact may have been caused by a calculated tipping point.
Josh wrote: āLOL! Warm climate periods are generally linked to some of the most diverse ecological times of our world.”
Periods of rapid and extreme change are generally linked to mass extinctions. My younger sister is a biologist who is paid to count and record extinct species. The information she supplies has been surprising and worrisome.
Josh wrote: “And they are historically advantageous to humans in general.”
To what history are you referring? Keep in mind that we’re not talking about nice sunny days. We’re talking about coastal flooding and acidified oceans.
Josh wrote: “Put the bong down and get a grip on reality brother.”
You got the wrong guy, there.
Karl Hallowell wrote: “Petroleum is not tightly controlled and never has been. Plenty of oil and LNG go to less developed countries (thereās no true undeveloped country aside from Somalia and even they get petro).”
Petroleum is indeed tightly controlled by commercial interests and has been for most of its history. Oil and LNG go to whoever is willing to pay the most for them. As oil and LNG grow more scarce, without sources of energy to fill in the gap, undeveloped countries will be last in line.
Karl Hallowell wrote: ” – We have all the pieces we need to reinvent our way of life and make it better without sacrificing anything.
Karl Hallowell wrote: “- Historically, new and more efficient products have always brought monetary gains, new markets and more new technologies
Broken window fallacy.”
Not at all. For one thing, we continually pay dearly to keep this particular window intact. Further, it’s not much of a stretch to suppose that cheap solar cells will sell. High capacity batteries and capacitors are already hot market and have historically been the missing link in many areas. High-strength, low-weight structural materials are in demand at the right price, and prices have now dropped sufficiently that these materials are appearing in a variety of vehicles. Superinsulated homes have been demonstrably cost-effective for several years, and purchase cost parity has been reached with at least one technology (SIP).
Karl Hallowell wrote: “- The technologies that are being invented are relevant and beneficial to the Third World.
So are the technologies that they would replace. What isnāt being replaced is the lost economic activity that results.”
New markets and cost-effective gains in efficiency are always economically advantageous. I’m unable to see your reasoning.
Karl Hallowell wrote: “- The costs of adaptation dwarf the costs of mitigation, especially so given that mitigation stands to be a technological windfall.
Conjecture, not based on fact. Truth is that adaptation is cheap. Itās a lot easier to move people and infrastructure than claimed. For example, the US and itās current infrastructure appeared over the course of a century. Thereās no reason that we canāt over the course of a few centuries adapt to any climate changes that occur. Less viable land slowly loses value while more valuable land gains. People move. Itās not a significant problem.”
First of all, over the course of a few decades, not centuries, we’re going to be transitioning out of petroleum, anyway. Is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities would be cheaper than transitioning to carbon-neutral technologies?
Second, what will be the effects of this shrinking habitable territory? I would predict new conflict, at the least, over arable land and habitable living space. If we can minimize these effects now by getting ahead of the problem, should we not do so?
Karl Hallowell wrote: “- And for those of us that are interested, all of these technologies are required for space travel.
Thatās nice, but higher economic activity and the current technologies are also a benefit to space travel and other uses of space.”
So far, not enough. We need light energy storage technologies for space travel. We need high strenth-to-weight ratio structural materials. Most especially, though, we need nuclear-based energy for propulsion; chemical rocket ISPs aren’t even enough to make brief lunar visits practically possible. One advantage of increased attention to fission and fusion is that we get space travel.
Karl Hallowell wrote: “Finally, as Iāve said elsewhere, if the precautionary principle had to eat its own dogfood, itād never be implemented. It is a dangerously wrong risk assessment. In particular, I see no reason for the talk about human extinction from global warming. No one has ever seriously proposed a mechanism by which that would happen. Using the precautionary principle to enforce this vague hysteria is simply another example of why it shouldnāt ever be used.”
Again, is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities over the next few centuries will be cheaper than transitioning right now to more efficient technologies that we have already?
Dave Klingler wrote:
Josh wrote:āLoL Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the primary result of any calculated tipping point may have been THE FREAKING ASTEROID IMPACT!!! ā
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that any asteroid impact may have been caused by a calculated tipping point.
But perhaps presuming the existence of a “calculated tipping point” isn’t necessary to explain radical climate change if there was an impact event, instead.
If you aren’t aware of it, there’s a growing body of evidence that the rapid climate changes of the Younger Dryas period may have been the result of an asteroid or comet impact on or above the Laurentide Ice Sheet north of the Great Lakes about 12,900 years ago — the so-called Clovis comet event. A cometary impact event also may explain the existence of the Carolina bays.
Although this hypothesis is controversial, the evidence for it is far more extensive and far more easily confirmable than any evidence for catastrophic AGW. The researchers who are advancing the hypothesis are sharing their data and would love to have others working independently on the problem.
Dave Klingler wrote: āWeāre doing that now. The model matches in some places.ā
Where and to what degree? Please give me just one example of real-world behaviour that AGW can explain but natural global warming cannot. However, please donāt tell me that the models say it must be CO2 as thereās no other way to align them with past-climate records, because all that tells me is that the models may be missing something significant (e.g. the effect of clouds); a fact that the IPCC clearly states in all of their reports.
Dave Klingler wrote: āI wonāt try to argue the science because I am not a climatologist.ā
If youāre sufficiently interested you should be able to seek out the key details and issues and then use common sense to determine if they tell a sensible and complete story. One of the basic fallacies of the AGW narrative is that only climate scientists are qualified to argue the science (i.e. argument by authority). This smack of arrogance and/or laziness and undermines ordinary peopleās respect for science because it makes them think scientists are being deliberately obtuse in order to guard their āsecretsā. This perception has only been strengthened by the leaked CRU emails.
Dave Klingler wrote: āthird-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy.ā
Whether thatās true or not, how will banning them from using cheap fossil fuels help them ādevelopā their way out of poverty? You assume the West and China will provide them with cheap clean energy sources yet they currently fail to provide sufficient cheap/basic tools to provide clean water and fight malaria ā things that are killing millions of children today! If they cannot deliver on the latter, who or what is going to make them deliver on the former?
Dave Klingler wrote: āAlready, in geological terms, Iām not exaggerating when I say weāre in the middle of a global mass extinction.ā
This may be a reasonable statement, bearing in mind that life tends to do less well in cooler climates and that weāre in a relatively cool period, geologically speaking (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). However, I see no evidence that CO2 is the main cause of this, though I do believe humans may bear some responsibility via a range of other activities (e.g. deforestation, over-fishing, toxic waste).
Dave, you whole line of reasoning is based upon the acceptance that catastrophic AGW is real, that we should adopt the āprecautionary principleā and, more importantly, concentrate out efforts and resources on āmitigationā instead of āadaptationā. However, if it turns out turns out that catastrophic natural global warming (NGW) is real, itās obvious that mitigation is not only a waist but, more importantly, does nothing to alleviate the negative impacts of NGW. Looked at in this way, itās clear to me that āmitigationā (i.e. decarbonisation) is not just wrong, itās positively suicidal!
I think this demonstrates just how much confusion the current AGW narrative generated amongst genuinely concerned people. Itās tried to persuade us that thereās just one central villain (i.e. CO2) responsible for most of the worldās ecological problems and that if we focus all our efforts in stopping it (i.e. decarbonisation) weāll have essentially solve the problem. To me, this is utter nonsense because the huge range of real ecological problems (deforestation, over-fishing, toxic waste, etc.) stem from a huge range of causes that can only be tackled on case-by-case basis. It not only gives us a false sense of security but worse still, it diverts and dilutes our resources and efforts to tackle these demonstrably real and serious problems.
Petroleum is indeed tightly controlled by commercial interests and has been for most of its history. Oil and LNG go to whoever is willing to pay the most for them. As oil and LNG grow more scarce, without sources of energy to fill in the gap, undeveloped countries will be last in line.
In that case, I don’t see the point of saying that these resources are “tightly controlled” since you can spend money (even so-called “undeveloped” countries can spend money) and gain the opportunity to “tightly control” your own piece.
[Technology readiness nonsense]
Technology that has no negative consequence: TR0
New markets and cost-effective gains in efficiency are always economically advantageous. Iām unable to see your reasoning.
I already explained why you are wrong. It’s not my problem that you can’t see the obvious. You create these markets by introducing inefficiencies and destroying value. That’s the broken window. If these were inherently economically advantageous, then they’d evolve naturally without the need for an economically ignorant government to destroy existing infrastructure.
First of all, over the course of a few decades, not centuries, weāre going to be transitioning out of petroleum, anyway. Is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities would be cheaper than transitioning to carbon-neutral technologies?
Cite some real science you idiot. If anyone has evidence of radical sea level rise, they haven’t come up with it yet. We don’t have time to debate every vague half-fear you might have. The fact is that no genuine research or models have forecast significant sea level risings on time scales of decades. Even the worst, gloom and doom forecast from the CRU (which came out last month) forecasts a mere 6C rise in temperature within a century. That won’t cause serious sea level rise on the order of decades.
So far, not enough. We need light energy storage technologies for space travel. We need high strenth-to-weight ratio structural materials. Most especially, though, we need nuclear-based energy for propulsion; chemical rocket ISPs arenāt even enough to make brief lunar visits practically possible. One advantage of increased attention to fission and fusion is that we get space travel.
While it’s nice to have better technologies, I don’t see your points. First, for space travel, most of it is in 100% sunshine. No need for “light energy storage”. Chemical rockets already make lunar visits “practically possible”. Apollo demonstrated the technology.
How does the modest need for better space technologies require that we sabotage our economy? My view is that switching now to some other arbitrary energy infrastructure on the irrational basis that CO2 emissions are really bad will actually hamper anything we do in space simply because we’d be destroying wealth that would otherwise be invested in space technologies.
Again, is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities over the next few centuries will be cheaper than transitioning right now to more efficient technologies that we have already?
Hell yes. You fail to understand that the global economy is growing. By the end of the century, we’re on track to have more than a full order of magnitude greater wealth per person than we did at the start. That means the longer we put off dealing with global warming, the more wealth and resources we have available for dealing with it. Further, this wealth will result in more mobile and resourceful developed societies far more capable of dealing with the modest effects of global warming. They’ll also be far more capable of space development and exploration.
OTOH, if we take the hit now, that reduces our economic growth immediately, greatly reducing future growth and development. Frankly, I think the damage will be a lot greater than proponents imagine, not that most of them care. They have consistently failed to understand the damage from similar initiatives (for example, the disastrous US ecological measures of the 70’s which sparked the decades long movement of industry from the US to other countries).
AGW and the currently ongoing mass extinction are connected, but not causally in either direction – at least not strongly. Clear-cutting of tropical forests, for example, contributes to anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels and also to extinctions – but one does not cause the other.
However, this might well change if AGW becomes an indisputable fact. This is largely because the threatened animal species may well be able to move, but the plants (particularly trees) that many of them depend on cannot – at least not in the likely timescale. Given a few hundred years, tropical trees might well grow in the UK, for example – but the timescale may well be a lot shorter than that.
I find it interesting that many, perhaps most, of the things that we in the West, and particulary you in the USA, need to do in order to make sure AGW doesn’t happen are things we ought to be doing, anyway, for other reasons – most of them connected with terrorism and jihad, but not all. For example, a rapidly increasing US tax on gasoline would improve vehicle efficiencies by the market forces we all know and love, but also reduce the income of people who want to make us all either slaves or corpses, and they are not particular which.
For example, if we succeed in getting one of the two fusion approaches that might actually work (focus fusion and Polywell, definitely not tokamak) to work, then we have clean power for ever, and both of these approaches might well lead to much less centralisation than is currently the case – as both approaches will probably work in fairly small units.
For example, OTEC gets us much more productive sea areas and therefore cheaper food, as long as you like fish.
For example, SPS gets us – by necessity – a much bigger presence in space and by extension the ability to prevent some other sorts of disaster, notably asteroid impacts. This same presence in space also gets us the best defense against some other problems (such as Yellowstone letting rip, for example), the best defense against which is not to be there when they happen. Or to put it another way, some more baskets to put our priceless eggs in.
So what ought to be done? Build nukes – lots of nukes – to a safe design, for example pebblebed. Put serious money into Polywell and focus fusion, OTEC and wave power. Put serious money into cheap space access – and don’t have NASA do it; do it by means of prizes, large ones. And also into biofuels, oif which the most promising is growing oil-producing algae.
Pay for some of this by stopping, immediately, all efforts concerning ground solar and wind power – both of which have truly terrible power density and reliability. And start ramping up US gasoline and diesel taxes, rapidly – maybe 10% per year. The oil products industry does not pay anything like the true costs of oil, in particular military costs. Time it started.
Lastly – the real problem with the AGW discussion is insufficient data. At the moment, the best way of approaching this is modelling, putting in as much detail as possible. The problem here is computer power. Any of you can help with this. Check out climateprediction.net. Basically, it’s a SETI@home-style climate modelling project that uses your spare computer cycles to run some some models that even the world’s biggest supercomputers can’t manage.
Fletcher, I have to mostly disagree. While some portion of the cost of the US military probably should be borne by fuel taxes, I don’t think it’ll turn out to be that significant, maybe $1 per gallon, that’s roughly 30-40% of current gas price before taxes. Further, I see oil trade as a avenue for taming Middle East theocracy rather than the other way around.
Moving on, I have a comment about models. Models are not a substitute for data. No matter how good your model is, if it’s based on bad data, then it will be a bad model.
Karl Hallowell @December 6th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Very thoughtful and well put.
Fletcher Christian @ December 7th, 2009 at 5:10 am
“For example, a rapidly increasing US tax on gasoline would improve vehicle efficiencies by the market forces we all know and love, but also reduce the income of people who want to make us all either slaves or corpses, and they are not particular which.”
And, also destroy our competitiveness with nations which decide not to constrain themselves so arbitrarily. Why do you believe an impoverished Middle East would generate fewer fanatics hating the West? What makes you think draining their overall wealth would hinder the maleficent activities of the most committed? How much did bin Laden spend to bring down the two towers?
“For example, if we succeed in getting one of the two fusion approaches that might actually work (focus fusion and Polywell, definitely not tokamak) to work, then we have clean power for ever, and both of these approaches might well lead to much less centralisation than is currently the case – as both approaches will probably work in fairly small units.”
Great, but like Karl said, TR0. Why does this require wrecking our economy?
“Pay for some of this by stopping, immediately, all efforts concerning ground solar and wind power – both of which have truly terrible power density and reliability.”
Now, you’re talking sense.
“Any of you can help with this. Check out climateprediction.net. Basically, itās a SETI@home-style climate modelling project that uses your spare computer cycles to run some some models that even the worldās biggest supercomputers canāt manage.”
No matter how powerful the computer, it is still vulnerable to GIGO.
Dave Salt wrote:
Dave Klingler wrote: āWeāre doing that now. The model matches in some places.ā
Where and to what degree? Please give me just one example of real-world behaviour that AGW can explain but natural global warming cannot. However, please donāt tell me that the models say it must be CO2…”
Arguing on these bases gets away from the point I was trying to make: arguing over the science and the ramifications is different from being completely dismissive, and if one is not completely dismissive the ramifications need to be considered seriously. There’s no scientific proof that AGW can be dismissed, is not a serious model or doesn’t have serious consequences. Based on the finite probability that the current AGW model (as a whole, not in detail) is substantively correct, the stakes must be considered. The stakes are so substantial that mitigation must also be considered.
That’s not to say that adaptation shouldn’t also be considered, and in fact if the current AGW has any worth adaptation is inescapable.
Dave Salt wrote:’
Dave Klingler wrote: āI wonāt try to argue the science because I am not a climatologist.ā
If youāre sufficiently interested you should be able to seek out the key details and issues and then use common sense to determine if they tell a sensible and complete story…’
Absolutely, but it gets away from my basic point. A large body of scientists who are paid to try their best to make an assessment of a serious issue returns with a conclusion that many people don’t like for various reasons. Fine. We may not like the conclusion and we may believe that it can be argued, but the consequences of the conclusion are highly negative and deserve a mitigation response. The degree of that response is dictated by what’s possible, what’s required to meet the threat posed in the required time frame and the cost effectiveness of the response versus the consequences of the threat.
Dave Salt wrote:’
Dave Klingler wrote: āthird-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy.ā
Whether thatās true or not, how will banning them from using cheap fossil fuels help them ādevelopā their way out of poverty…”
1. Oil production is not going to increase.
2. If the current users don’t use less of it, the supply will not increase.
3. If manufacturable substitutes are developed, Third World countries will initially become importers rather than suppliers.
4. Third World countries do not have the economic resources to build oil-based economy infrastructure in the next decade or two.
5. While we are discovering ways to manufacture oil substitutes, we have also made large breakthroughs in cost-effective technologies that don’t require that infrastructure.
6. Third World countries can take advantage of these technologies immediately.
I personally believe that whether or not Third World countries agree to limit their emissions is by and large a moot point, and certainly so if oil prices rise.
I’ve seen some good progress recently on water and malaria, but those are different topics.
Dave Salt wrote: ā…I do believe humans may bear some responsibility via a range of other activities (e.g. deforestation, over-fishing, toxic waste).”
My gut instinct is that in large part deforestation is to blame for our current atmosphere concerns. At many times in the past the atmosphere’s taken some major damage and recovered just fine. What percentage is emissions and what percentage deforestation requires speculation that I’m currently unwilling to attempt.
Dave Salt wrote: “Dave, you whole line of reasoning is based upon the acceptance that catastrophic AGW is real,”
That would be “the acceptance that catastrophic AGW *may* be real…”
Dave Salt wrote: “…that we should adopt the āprecautionary principleā and, more importantly, concentrate out efforts and resources on āmitigationā instead of āadaptationā. However, if it turns out turns out that catastrophic natural global warming (NGW) is real, itās obvious that mitigation is not only a waist but, more importantly, does nothing to alleviate the negative impacts of NGW. Looked at in this way, itās clear to me that āmitigationā (i.e. decarbonisation) is not just wrong, itās positively suicidal!”
I’m not sure anybody would argue that decarbonization by itself is a solution to GW, or that any informed person would say that it’s the entire cause. Certainly deforestation gets a lot of attention. I agree that neglecting other problems would be drastically inadequate. We need to find viable ways to feed ourselves, cease poisoning ourselves and make allowances for the fact that we have evolved to fit the world as it stands today, with current temperatures and air composition.
Dave Salt wrote:”…just one central villain (i.e. CO2) responsible for most of the worldās ecological problems and that if we focus all our efforts in stopping it (i.e. decarbonisation) weāll have essentially solve the problem. ”
Nonetheless, if there’s a good chance that CO2 emissions are a single-point failure mode for the planet in its current form, that needs to be addressed. I’m pretty sure that the reasons all of those other problems you mentioned aren’t getting as much air time currently is that they’ve been around a long time as issues and they’re inarguable. Another reason is that there’s a lot of money against the very issue of any global warming whatsoever which continues to pay for the sowing of confusion on the topic.
Regardless, I’ve seen more progress on other energy technologies in the past two years than I’ve seen in the previous forty. I haven’t in the past taken PV systems seriously, but a KW of PV panels sitting on my roof in the next couple of years may actually be cheaper than the power I currently buy from PNM. That’s more attractive to a Third World buyer than a central power solution that requires the legalities and installation costs we’ve come to take for granted for distributed electricity.
Dave Klingler wrote: “Thereās no scientific proof that AGW can be dismissed, is not a serious model or doesnāt have serious consequences.”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on those promoting the AGW narrative to provide the proof. Using your logic I could argue that there’s no scientific proof that aliens aren’t abducting people, so we must have a defense program against UFO’s.
Dave Klingler wrote: “A large body of scientists who are paid to try their best to make an assessment of a serious issue returns with a conclusion that many people donāt like for various reasons”.
I’m not going to say much more because we seem to be going in circles. However, I’ll note that most of the concerns being pushed at the Copenhagen conference are based upon projections far worse than those made by the IPCC, whose work is criticized by many for not reflecting the real extremes of AGW. So, if you’re worried about the way the skeptics think, you should be just as worried, if not more so, by the true-believers because it’s they who are now driving the political agenda.
Bart, at the moment models are all we have. Making them consider more things has to be good, right?
I also fail to see how reducing the American balance of payments deficit by subtle pressure towards fuel-efficient cars is going to hurt the American economy. Unless, that is, American car makers are completely incapable of building them and they would therefore have to be imported. Oh, wait…
Working towards alternative energy approaches that might actually work is more likely to help anyone’s economy than hurt it. If only because in that case more graduate physicists might actually use their skills for something useful instead of selling their mathematical skills to the Wunch – who collectively have done more damage to the American economy (and that of the rest of the West, but you probably don’t give a shit about that) than Imperial Japan managed. A hell of a lot more.
Perhaps the fusion research could be paid for by confiscatory tax on banking industry bonuses. Which is being considered in the UK, by the way. And I’ll vote for that if given a chance.
Karl Hallowell Says: ‘you can spend money (even so-called āundevelopedā countries can spend money) and gain the opportunity to ātightly controlā your own piece.’
Regardless of your definitions of commercial control, no Third World country is going to develop an oil-based infrastructure before oil runs out.
Karl Halowell wrote: “[Technology readiness nonsense]
Technology that has no negative consequence: TR0″
You’re dwelling on the irrelevant. There are no new technologies that have no negative consequences. The technologies I cited have net-positive consequences for their purchasers and for human society. There’s a demand for home insulation because it pays for itself. There’s a demand for lighter cars because people will pay an initial purchase premium to get higher gas mileage. There’s a demand for solar cells. There’s a monstrous demand for higher energy storage density.
Karl Halowell wrote:
‘”New markets and cost-effective gains in efficiency are always economically advantageous. Iām unable to see your reasoning.”
I already explained why you are wrong. Itās not my problem that you canāt see the obvious. You create these markets by introducing inefficiencies and destroying value.’
Bad reasoning. The inefficiencies were introduced long ago, and because of politics and oil subsidies we’re only just now shaking them out. The markets already exist and prices are dropping precipitously. People already buy home insulation, cars that get good gas mileage and batteries that hold more charge. PV cells were handy before they fell below $3/peak watt hour.
Karl Halowell wrote: “Thatās the broken window. If these were inherently economically advantageous, then theyād evolve naturally without the need for an economically ignorant government to destroy existing infrastructure.”
Academic pap! Capitalism chooses what’s expedient, political, well-marketed, entrenched, good for a few players and bad for society on a constant basis. Some inefficiencies hang around for decades. Monopolies and trusts protect their interests all the time without fear of prosecution. I can probably name a dozen products that are no longer in my local grocery store for reasons unrelated to whether they were popular purchases.
Karl Halowell wrote: “First of all, over the course of a few decades, not centuries, weāre going to be transitioning out of petroleum, anyway. Is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities would be cheaper than transitioning to carbon-neutral technologies?
Cite some real science you idiot. [rant about sea levels]’
Why should I cite some real science to prove something I never said? We’ll be transitioning out of petroleum soon. That’s a given. You’re the one who originally said that over the next century and a half we could just as well rebuild our cities inland. That’s nuts. If we’re deploying new technologies we can just as well choose precautionary ones.
Karl Halowell said: ‘
I said:”So far, not enough. We need light energy storage technologies for space travel. We need high strenth-to-weight ratio structural materials. Most especially, though, we need nuclear-based energy for propulsion; chemical rocket ISPs arenāt even enough to make brief lunar visits practically possible. One advantage of increased attention to fission and fusion is that we get space travel.”
While itās nice to have better technologies, I donāt see your points. First, for space travel, most of it is in 100% sunshine. No need for ālight energy storageā. Chemical rockets already make lunar visits āpractically possibleā. Apollo demonstrated the technology.’
There are plenty of times when spacecraft can’t practically have panels deployed, or need to temporarily draw more power than panels would provide. For the same reason storing power can sometimes be lighter than carrying a larger RTG. For planetary rovers, the need for larger energy storage per unit mass is obvious.
Apollo demonstrated nothing other that with the aid of a cold war and some very powerful senators, it’s possible to use a very large rocket to get a very small payload to the Moon, and an even smaller one back to Earth. Practicality was not an issue, nor did it ever rear its head.
Battery, solar cell, lightweight materials and nuclear power plant development and competition are great bonuses for space travel. They’re also off-topic.
Karl Halowell wrote: ‘How does the modest need for better space technologies require that we sabotage our economy? My view is that switching now to some other arbitrary energy infrastructure on the irrational basis that CO2 emissions are really bad will actually hamper anything we do in space simply because weād be destroying wealth that would otherwise be invested in space technologies.’
I referred to bonuses for those who cared, but I made no such statement.
Further, you have yet to provide any solid reasons or examples of why wealth would be destroyed by transitioning to a more energy-efficient infrastructure. You seem to think it’s obvious. Given that replacement equivalents exist now or are entering the markets, it’s not.
I’ve never known any American to make a large sacrifice of any comfort for any reason other than absolute necessity, and I highly doubt anybody will start. I believe that any improvements we make to our carbon footprint will arrive strictly because they’re tolerably devoid of sacrifice or at worst an equal trade. The raw science has already been done to make the transition possible, and the technology already exists in relatively low volumes.
Karl Halowell wrote: ‘Frankly, I think the damage will be a lot greater than proponents imagine, not that most of them care. They have consistently failed to understand the damage from similar initiatives (for example, the disastrous US ecological measures of the 70ās which sparked the decades long movement of industry from the US to other countries).’
Cite some, please. Every movement I can name from the U.S. to another country was done for reasons unrelated to ecological measures. If indeed you consider ecological measures as a whole harmful, what would you prefer as an alternative?
Further, you have yet to provide any solid reasons or examples of why wealth would be destroyed by transitioning to a more energy-efficient infrastructure. You seem to think itās obvious. Given that replacement equivalents exist now or are entering the markets, itās not.
First, because the transition is forced not due to natural economic forces. Second, I’ve ignored this in the past, but why do you think the infrastructure will be more efficient? There some significant efficiencies in a fossil fuel based system. The key one is cost. You get a lot of energy for relatively low cost. It also has great energy densities out there which is an issue for energy stored for use in transportation.
Cite some, please. Every movement I can name from the U.S. to another country was done for reasons unrelated to ecological measures. If indeed you consider ecological measures as a whole harmful, what would you prefer as an alternative?
How about the movement of industry out of the US? That was the movement I referred to.
Dave Klinger, there is some particularly bizarre noise coming from you with respect to oil. I still have no idea why you insist that “third countries”, whatever that means, can’t develop their own energy infrastructure or even buy and use oil (they’ve been doing so for decades). Let me discuss some of the outlandish and wrong statements you’ve made.
The first observation that I have is that third-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy. Petroleum has almost always been tightly controlled, and energy costs are only going up. The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Clearly untrue. If you actually believe what you write, it implies that you don’t even have the slightest clue what goes on in the rest of the world. Not only does what is traditionally thought of as the “Third World” buy considerable oil, but they produce it as well.
Josh wrote: āSounds like you need to realize how supply and demand works. Those that have it sell to those that need it.ā
Or rather, want it and are willing to pay for it. Like I saidā¦
In other words, you imply here that because oil is sold on a market, it is a) tightly controlled and b) “not a drop” goes to a certain category of country. This does not follow. Instead, the fact that there is a fairly competitive market implies that oil is not highly controlled and it is available to anyone, including third world countries, who buys it.
And again:
Petroleum is indeed tightly controlled by commercial interests and has been for most of its history. Oil and LNG go to whoever is willing to pay the most for them. As oil and LNG grow more scarce, without sources of energy to fill in the gap, undeveloped countries will be last in line.
Once again, if you can get oil merely by waving money around, then oil is not “tightly controlled”. “Undeveloped countries” (whatever that means) merely need to offer a little more per barrel to get in front of line.
Cheap energy will not come from oil, gas or coal. Third World countries do not have enough soldiers or diplomats to secure their oil supplies. Cheap energy for Third World countries can ONLY come from other sources.
I don’t see a single viable country which doesn’t have enough soldiers for its oil wells. And the bit about diplomats is a real howler. How many diplomats do you need per well? What do you do with them? Do you pump them down there so that the oil comes out faster? Or do you think diplomacy is won by numbers? The US airdrops a zillion diplomats on Toughluckistan, forcing them to sell their oil to the US rather than to the highest bidder.
Regardless of your definitions of commercial control, no Third World country is going to develop an oil-based infrastructure before oil runs out.
Every country has an oil-based infrastructure. It may not, as in the case of Somalia, be a big part of the country’s economy, but everyone has them!
And as far as “definitions” go, I don’t consider a market even remotely “tightly controlled”, if there’s a lot of competition and I can get what I want by waving some money.
In summary, I see a bunch of bizarrely wrong statements that even a modest amount of thought would disabuse you of considering. Frankly, you need a basic education in economics, particularly the economics of energy infrastructure before any of this will make sense to you. Otherwise, you’ll never be able to understand much less debate anything in this area.
Typo correction
I still have no idea why you insist that āthird countriesā, whatever that means
I meant “Third World countries”. Let me explain why I put this and “undeveloped countries” in quotes.
These are terms that made some sense during the Cold War. There the First World was the western democracies (US, Europe, Japan, etc), the Second World was the Communist countries, and the Third World was everyone else. Those terms are pretty much obsolete. For example, the Second World no longer exists. The Third World consists of a huge variety of countries with disparate economic systems. For example, one would not consider Saudi Arabia a poor country or a country that can’t get a drop of oil. But it was part of the Third World.
Moving on, aside from Somalia (where it’s not clear that anyone is trying), there’s no such thing as an “undeveloped country”. Everyone else is developing their country at some rate. Even the “developed countries” are developing their countries. Which means there really is only one category here, “developing countries”.
Karl Hallowell wrote: (I wrote) Further, you have yet to provide any solid reasons or examples of why wealth would be destroyed by transitioning to a more energy-efficient infrastructure. You seem to think itās obvious. Given that replacement equivalents exist now or are entering the markets, itās not.
First, because the transition is forced not due to natural economic forces.
Firstly, enough of this amateur economist textbook pap. The world is messy, not neatly deterministic according to whatever you happen to identify as “natural economic forces”, and “natural economic forces” are in and of themselves a construction. When a government decides that a particular technology would be beneficial to society and pumps money into it to get it started, is that a natural economic force? Where oil is concerned, other than “the well has run dry”, in your inventory of “natural economic forces” you’re leaving out a lot of random chance, political dealing, liberal doses of outright bribery and the subsidy of the U.S. Military which, as you’ve stated, seems to cost about a buck per gallon of gasoline (I did go back and check the numbers yesterday, and that’s where it rides). Throw in whatever we pay for healthcare costs as a society for breathing the cocktail of ash, petroleum distillates, CO and whatever else our 200 million U.S. vehicles and however many trucks have been pumping into our air supply, and the real costs of relying on chemical combustion per individual taxpayer would seem to carry a lot of invisible subsidies. Things grow pretty ambiguous when you try to figure out whether gas-powered vehicles have been a winning proposition over EVs for the U.S.. I don’t have a ready answer.
Karl Halowell wrote: Second, Iāve ignored this in the past, but why do you think the infrastructure will be more efficient?
– It is now cheaper to superinsulate a home than to pay heating bills. With a few decisions to optimize insolation that saves money for the homeowner, homes in many parts of the country will stay warm by themselves. I know one guy with a 5000+ sq. ft. home that uses less than $30/month in natural gas during winter. I’ll grant that the results are negative for the utility companies, and CITGO.
– The other night I visited one of my most conservative friends, a guy who has sworn that he will never, ever buy a hybrid automobile, and he surprised me by showing off his new 3-watt LED light fixtures. Although expensive, they do pay for themselves in power savings, and they’re far brighter than the ones they replaced.
– Surprisingly (to me), PV cell manufacturing cost and connect inverters are crossing the point where low-efficiency (10%) PV is just barely cheaper than PNM grid power, albeit only for homeowners who have space on their rooftops (I do).
Where automobiles are concerned, the magical missing technology is still cost-effective energy storage. That also obviously still goes for the various types of solar and wind power.
Karl Halowell wrote: ‘Dave Klingler wrote: Cite some, please. Every movement I can name from the U.S. to another country was done for reasons unrelated to ecological measures. If indeed you consider ecological measures as a whole harmful, what would you prefer as an alternative?
How about the movement of industry out of the US? That was the movement I referred to.
I live in the United States, where the dollar grew so weak that companies from other countries bought up their American counterparts and shut them down, lock, stock and barrel, during the 1980’s, because it was cheap to do it. During the 1990’s the few American manufacturers that were left discovered that labor was cheaper everywhere else, not only because of ecological measures but because of exchange rates, child labor laws, hourly wages, 40-hour work weeks, dormitory-style factories, raw materials close by, unfair subsidies and price-fixing, unfair tariffs and daimyo corporations. Uh, where do you live?
Karl Hallowell wrote: Dave Klinger, there is some particularly bizarre noise coming from you with respect to oil. I still have no idea why you insist that āthird countriesā, whatever that means, canāt develop their own energy infrastructure or even buy and use oil (theyāve been doing so for decades). Let me discuss some of the outlandish and wrong statements youāve made.
First of all, you’ve repeatedly misspelled my name (I guess you’re not a detail guy) and secondly, “third countries” was not my typo.
The first observation that I have is that third-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy. Petroleum has almost always been tightly controlled, and energy costs are only going up. The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Clearly untrue. If you actually believe what you write, it implies that you donāt even have the slightest clue what goes on in the rest of the world. Not only does what is traditionally thought of as the āThird Worldā buy considerable oil, but they produce it as well.
You’re right, if you’re talking about South America. You’re wrong, if you’re talking about most of Africa, Central Asia, some of the former Soviets or most of the Far East. Even China is a net importer, which is why they’ve been selling arms to Iran, Sudan and Somalia.
In other words, you imply here that because oil is sold on a market, it is a) tightly controlled and b) ānot a dropā goes to a certain category of country. This does not follow. Instead, the fact that there is a fairly competitive market implies that oil is not highly controlled and it is available to anyone, including third world countries, who buys it.
Sure, if they can. On the other hand, China builds the refineries and pipelines in Sudan, and the Red Army’s there guarding them. China sells IRBMs to Iran and they partner with Iran to build refineries. They also support Iran against the U.S. in the United Nations. China’s state-owned oil company has been rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. They have agreements with virtually every oil producer in South America. They’re involved in territorial disputes over oil with Malaysia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei and Japan, and if you had to bet, who would you bet on?
China has offered Saudi Arabia weapons several times, but so far the Saudis have preferred to ally with the U.S. because we’re their captive market. In return we also support the Saudis with arms, intelligence and in the United Nations. The UK and Europe play the same game with Libya, Congo, etc. That’s why we went to Vietnam, that’s why the Iranians hate the U.K., etc. etc. We all protect our interests. The Chinese don’t send the Red Army to protect a pipeline so that they can send oil to Switzerland.
I donāt see a single viable country which doesnāt have enough soldiers for its oil wells. And the bit about diplomats is a real howler. How many diplomats do you need per well?
And who supplies the arms for those soldiers? And who supplies the “grants” and the “debt forgiveness”? And who sends terrorists home to a hero’s welcome in Libya, or politely looks the other way while Russia disciplines its “terrorists” or invades neighbors?
And as far as ādefinitionsā go, I donāt consider a market even remotely ātightly controlledā, if thereās a lot of competition and I can get what I want by waving some money.
By your definitions, then, most of these markets are tightly controlled. China has waved more money than we have in the Middle East, and so far, we’ve retained access. If we withdraw from the Gulf or lose control of it, that might change.
Frankly, you need a basic education in economics, particularly the economics of energy infrastructure before any of this will make sense to you.
The word “economics” doesn’t mean what you think it does. A basic education in history, current events, diplomacy and business might benefit you as well. I’ve owned various businesses for the past twenty-five years, and been involved in several others. I’ve used a lot of tools other than money to lock up business and keep my competitors out. You just don’t know quite as much as you think you do, Karl.
Btw, Karl, even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, the “Second World” arguably still does, and the Russians have repeatedly told us to stay out of it.
Firstly, enough of this amateur economist textbook pap.
[…]
When a government decides that a particular technology would be beneficial to society and pumps money into it to get it started, is that a natural economic force?
I see the “pap” goes on. No. It’s not a natural economic force. People aren’t making the choice because it is better, cheaper, etc (namely, because they want to), but because government has forced them to. As for the other stuff you mention in that paragraph, I’m for taxing oil at the rate it is subsidized. No need to have the government force us to not chose oil.
You still haven’t answered how many diplomats are needed per well or why “Third World countries” have oil when they don’t “get a drop”.
By your definitions, then, most of these markets are tightly controlled.
No. Look there are parts of the oil infrastructure (like Saudi Arabia’s production) that are tightly controlled. But these are only part of the whole thing. The global market simply is not tightly controlled.
The word āeconomicsā doesnāt mean what you think it does. A basic education in history, current events, diplomacy and business might benefit you as well. Iāve owned various businesses for the past twenty-five years, and been involved in several others. Iāve used a lot of tools other than money to lock up business and keep my competitors out. You just donāt know quite as much as you think you do, Karl.
Yet another demonstration that someone can be economically ignorant yet still run a business (presumably successfully). The skill sets aren’t the same.
Let’s take a similar example. I’m pretty good with math, even picked up a Ph.D. in it. Would you say then that I’m good at business? Of course not. It tells you nothing. Neither does it tell you that I’ll be good in economics (though the math helps some). While business and economics have some things in common, they are far from the same thing. Here, the form of economics we’re looking at is macroeconomics, the “science” (if you will) of the economic statistics and dynamics of large groups of people. How has your business experience prepared you to make policy decisions about a few hundred million people?
My view is simply that almost every person is sufficiently autonomous and competent to make their own decisions. When someone else starts making decisions for them, those decisions will not be informed by the subject’s circumstances. Inherently, the decisions by proxy are suboptimal. And we haven’t even gotten to conflicts of interest where the decision makers are tempted (and very often succumb) to decide in ways that benefit themselves or some group they identify with. I think government has legitimate roles in enforcing the rule of law, contracts, and as the insurer of last resort. I don’t believe forcing hundreds of millions of people to abandon oil-based transportation and heating falls into one of those categories.
Finally, you continue to make silly statements about oil. A cursory glance at the “Third World” countries indicates you are wrong.
Btw, Karl, even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, the āSecond Worldā arguably still does, and the Russians have repeatedly told us to stay out of it.
No, the Russians have “told us” to stay out of a part of what used to be the Second World (namely a few of the former Soviet republics). You can and have argued otherwise (hence, it is by definition “arguable”), but the region that used to be the Second World simply no longer has the ideology or cohesiveness. What defined the Second World (aside from some geographical boundaries) no longer exists.
– The other night I visited one of my most conservative friends, a guy who has sworn that he will never, ever buy a hybrid automobile, and he surprised me by showing off his new 3-watt LED light fixtures. Although expensive, they do pay for themselves in power savings, and theyāre far brighter than the ones they replaced.
Did government hold his hand while he made that choice? No (though government might have mandated the revealing of information that he used to make his choice). Your “most conservative friend” chose to buy the light bulb. I get the impression you think that “conservative” means “always makes bad choices” and hence, are surprised when they act like everybody else. It’s not hypocrisy for a conservative to switch to some other energy infrastructure (and similar decisions) when it is a clearly superior choice.
The thing to note here is that the choice to switch came naturally. Your friend could save money by making the switch, there were a lot of benefits to counter the higher cost of the LED bulbs.
What you seem to be proposing in several places is that you are convinced that certain technologies are cheaper, better, etc, but for some reason people refuse to adopt those technologies. What we see in practice is that people make the choices when the benefit is obvious. I see no reason for government to interfere. The mere fact that government has to force someone to make a decision indicates to me that something must have been wrong with the assumption in the first place. Namely, the choice must not have been that good for the subject.
It puzzles me why you prefer the club of force over finesse. For example, to cover the subsidies the US government has on protecting the oil infrastructure, we could ban oil, or we could levy a suitable tax commensurate with the value of the protection (keep in mind here that the US may choose to overpay for those activities, oil buyers shouldn’t have to pay the full amount for inefficient government).
Karl Hallowell wrote:
Dave Klingler wrote:
Firstly, enough of this amateur economist textbook pap.
[…]
When a government decides that a particular technology would be beneficial to society and pumps money into it to get it started, is that a natural economic force?
I see the āpapā goes on. No. Itās not a natural economic force. People arenāt making the choice because it is better, cheaper, etc (namely, because they want to), but because government has forced them to.
No. Nowhere in my sentence did I mention or imply ‘force’. There are too many examples to count wherein a government decides that a particular technology is beneficial to society, and pumps money into it to get it started. A large number of technologies we use every day began that way: oil, rubber, most medicines, semiconductors and many others. As you point out, products were initially brought to market by ‘unnatural’ forces, but these products were successful nonetheless and have completely changed the face of modern society.
As for the other stuff you mention in that paragraph, Iām for taxing oil at the rate it is subsidized. No need to have the government force us to not chose oil.
We agree. But add a dollar to the price of gasoline (or more if you count the bureaucratic cost of Fatherland, Motherland or Homeland Security), and the break-even point for a hybrid automobile is less than a year with no improvements in technology.
You still havenāt answered how many diplomats are needed per well or why āThird World countriesā have oil when they donāt āget a dropā.
I was wrong. I must modify my wording from “not a drop” to “very few drops”. If Gaddafi wakes up on the wrong side of the bed one day or extremists gain control of the oil supply, it’s possible that almost all the oil might one day go to developing countries, and I will be wrong again.
By your definitions, then, most of these markets are tightly controlled.
No. Look there are parts of the oil infrastructure (like Saudi Arabiaās production) that are tightly controlled. But these are only part of the whole thing. The global market simply is not tightly controlled.
The top ten crude and processed petroleum suppliers to the United States are controlled tightly by either commercial or government forces (or both). Brazil will become a major supplier to world markets in the next few years, and although there are strong forces at play now one could argue that the question in their case is unsettled. China’s and Venezuela’s state-owned companies are sponsoring Brazilian field development. It will probably be settled soon, and either or both winners will be state-owned. Then there’s Russia, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the half-dozen African states, the North Sea, and the fields the Chinese are attempting to control in the East and South China seas. Everything I’ve just listed is pretty tightly controlled. You could argue Canada, but as long as we pay market price all their production goes straight south because their margins are better on U.S. sales.
You can argue semantics…
The word āeconomicsā doesnāt mean what you think it does. A basic education in history, current events, diplomacy and business might benefit you as well. Iāve owned various businesses for the past twenty-five years, and been involved in several others. Iāve used a lot of tools other than money to lock up business and keep my competitors out. You just donāt know quite as much as you think you do, Karl.
Yet another demonstration that someone can be economically ignorant yet still run a business (presumably successfully). The skill sets arenāt the same.
You have overflown the points by at least a continent. I’m fairly sure you’ve gotten it, and you’re just acting obtuse. No one can use strictly economics to forecast oil availability, oil availability to developing countries is fairly proscribed, and most new economic growth in developing countries must come from non-oil-based sources. Oil is a business. One country can lock another country out of a market through the use of wealth and diplomacy, as I have locked competitors out using the same methods. In point of fact, it has happened many times. The People’s Soldier is not really your friend.
Karl, if we were in the same room I’d have had your wallet several times by now and handed it back to you.
Letās take a similar example. Iām pretty good with math, even picked up a Ph.D. in it…My view is simply that almost every person is sufficiently autonomous and competent to make their own decisions. When someone else starts making decisions for them, those decisions will not be informed by the subjectās circumstances.
With you so far…
Inherently, the decisions by proxy are suboptimal.
That doesn’t follow. More properly, “…decisions by proxy may be suboptimal.” Your field must not be analysis.
I think government has legitimate roles in enforcing the rule of law, contracts, and as the insurer of last resort. I donāt believe forcing hundreds of millions of people to abandon oil-based transportation and heating falls into one of those categories.
As a species we made a decision a long time ago to proscribe individuals from buying nuclear materials in quantities sufficient to create mischief, not only in the United States but elsewhere in the world. We also limited CFC’s a few decades ago. The only reason to limit burning of hydrocarbons would be for a reason similar to the ones above.
You and I disagree on two crucial points:
1. – Whether we should willing to take a risk that the consequences of AGW will be palatable or nil. – I never consider a risk without considering the stakes, and in the decision time allotted to us the stakes strike me as too much to risk.
2. – Whether the consequences of moving to non-fossil-fuel-based energy technologies are good for the world’s economic well-being. – I would contend that the transition would eventually happen by itself because most of the required technologies are already cost-effective in the present, and are growing more-so. I cannot prove that energy storage will arrive any time soon, but the physics and the volume of development dollars are certainly in our favor. To wit, with PV at a buck a watt, wind in abundance and fusion on the way, the economics favor non-fossil energy.
Finally, you continue to make silly statements about oil. A cursory glance at the āThird Worldā countries indicates you are wrong.
Regardless of whether you think that developing countries can and will run right out and buy as much oil a they need from whoever they want, the point is moot. They’ll not be getting their order of magnitude in increased wealth from burning oil. They may get it from burning alcohols or manufactured petroleum fuels, or they may get it from other sources, but not oil.
…3-watt LED light fixtures…far brighter than the ones they replaced.
…Itās not hypocrisy for a conservative to switch to some other energy infrastructure (and similar decisions) when it is a clearly superior choice.
You have missed the point. The point was that my friend went out and purchased a 3-watt light that was as bright as a 150-watt product AND was cost-effective. You have been arguing the idea that becoming more energy-efficient and switching to non-fossil fuels over the next few decades subtracts from our economic well-being. My friend’s three-watt light puts money in his pocket. If everyone made the same decision over a decade’s time, it would put money in everyone’s pockets AND knock down a significant amount of our energy usage.
The thing to note here is that the choice to switch came naturally. Your friend could save money by making the switch, there were a lot of benefits to counter the higher cost of the LED bulbs.
You’re seeing the light. And some of these benefits are good for the economy as a whole. Have you noticed that nobody talks about M1 any more?
What you seem to be proposing in several places is that you are convinced that certain technologies are cheaper, better, etc, but for some reason people refuse to adopt those technologies. What we see in practice is that people make the choices when the benefit is obvious.
Frankly, few have had time to adopt these technologies.
We’ve progressed. Now we agree that at least one energy-saving technology exists that has benefits…
I see no reason for government to interfere. The mere fact that government has to force someone to make a decision indicates to me that something must have been wrong with the assumption in the first place. Namely, the choice must not have been that good for the subject.
I’m not going to parse your statement too carefully, but in general I think that most people agree that the only reason for government to interfere in encouraging through regulation the adoption of a beneficial technology is if there is a significant risk to the public health in remaining with the technology that it replaces.
It puzzles me why you prefer the club of force over finesse.
Never even implied I feel that way. Rhetoric does not become a mathematician. See enumerated disagreements above.
For example, to cover the subsidies the US government has on protecting the oil infrastructure, we could ban oil, or we could levy a suitable tax commensurate with the value of the protection (keep in mind here that the US may choose to overpay for those activities, oil buyers shouldnāt have to pay the full amount for inefficient government).
Sounds fine to me, but practically speaking I’m not sure you’ll ever get away with the idea that a country’s citizens shouldn’t have to pay their inefficient government’s debts. We add up all the places where we subsidize petroleum and we stop. The changeover would happen a lot more quickly, and any idea of having governments push it along would seem superfluous.
Since it’s unlikely that this debate will continue, I’ll just say a few parting words.
1) I mistook your statements about government incentives as implying the use of force.
2) Just because LEDs were a good buy for your friend, doesn’t mean they are in general. Nor does it imply other supposed energy saving technologies are worthwhile.
3) While it is possible for someone else to make an “optimal” decision for me, it’s unlikely to occur. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
4) Ten tightly controlled sources by ten different owners is not a tightly controlled market. Otherwise one could say the same thing of gas stations or grocery stores.
5) Immigration and default are the way citizens avoid paying a country’s debts.
Karl, if we were in the same room Iād have had your wallet several times by now and handed it back to you.
I was thinking that the AGW scam is more similar to middle age indulgences than anything else. Just substitute the alarmists for the priests and you’re all set.
Hey! Did you come up with that too? I was thinking the same thing. (About the indulgences). Where’s our Martin Luther to stop the eco-madness? š
He’s a retired Canadian named Steve McIntyre.
I think that cap-and-trade is designed to make traders rich and to make congressmen able to get money and power. See how Kyoto actually worked as an example. Cap-and-trade will probably not even reduce global CO2.
Carbon tax, with offsetting changes to make it revenue neutral, would probably work far better at reducing CO2 without crippling the world with government micromanagement.
This preference for a carbon tax over cap-and-trade is common among economists; for example, Greg Mankiw keeps a tally of members of the “Pigou Club” who advocate that.
I strongly disagree with Hansen et al on the need or feasibility of reducing CO2 emissions. Yet, in this one case, I agree with Hansen that the best available way of actually reducing CO2 if needed is to use the free market’s operation under a carbon tax.
Actually, I heard it somewhere along the line during the last week or two and it stuck in my mind. Very appropriate.
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming is that if climatologists are right we don’t have any time to ponder. We’ve been screwed for a while and we’re growing more-so by the minute. If they’re right, well, the sun is a big heat pump and the various systems being pumped aren’t easily slowed down. It doesn’t do anybody any good to be able to say, some day, “I told you so!” if future generations are facing an Earth that’s far less habitable.
Some questions to ponder:
1. Are all climate researchers who determine that mankind is causing global warming falsifying their results? If so, how long have they been doing it?
2. What are the stakes if anti-AGW forces are correct? What are the stakes if AGW climate researchers are correct? Similarly, what are the odds?
3. Who are the anti-AGW interests and what do they have to gain? Who are the AGW interests and what do they have to gain?
* I should have written “heat source” instead of “heat pump”.
Dave Klingler wrote: “Are all climate researchers who determine that mankind is causing global warming falsifying their results? If so, how long have they been doing it?”
Even if the answer to this question is no, it says nothing about the single thread by which the AGW narrative hangs. If you’re serious about understanding the real threat of CO2, then you need to seek the answer to just one question: is there any real-world evidence that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system (i.e. the mechanism that amplifies a less than 1C āmolehillā into a greater than 4C āmountainā)?
From my reading of the IPCC reports and even RealClimate blog, the answer to this question is “we don’t really know but the models tell us it must be true”, which is why the current AWG narrative invokes the ‘precautionary principle’.
The simple truth is that the most important step of the Scientific Method ā make a prediction and perform an experiment/observation to demonstrate/falsify it ā has yet to be performed*, yet people are preparing to force upon us major economic and social changes that will likely impoverish the global population and, worst of all, perpetuate human suffering in the third world.
*Some would say it has because the predicted āhot spotā 10km above the equator seems to be missing and so appears to falsity the theory.
P.S. Rand, I’m sorry I keep repeating the same old thing throughout these threads but I really do think that if people could recognize these few simple facts, then much of the argument would be seen to be just so much ‘hot air’… pun intended :-).
“It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to
global warmingstatism is that ifclimatologistslibertarians are right we donāt have any time to ponder. Weāve been screwed for a while and weāre growing more-so by the minute.”Fixed that for you.
I toured the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC recently, after having read some blog posts about what “we” should do with the Deniers — should “we” put them on trial, and execute them?
It was a little unnerving going through the exhibit which followed a young Jewish boy’s chronicle of the gradual transition from regular citizen to death camp denizen. We’re at an early in the same process, but that process is moving forward.
Dave Salt:
** Keep saying it. **
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming is that if climatologists are right we donāt have any time to ponder.
Not all climatologists are saying this. And those that are, don’t know enough to justify the statement.
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming is that if climatologists are right we donāt have any time to ponder.
And if the 2012=doomsday crowd is right, we have even less time. . oh, but wait, they’re not.
The evidence for either anthropogenic or catastrophic climate change is fundamentally nonexistent. It is solely a faith-based political movement at this point, and has been for some time now.
Dave Salt wrote: “Even if the answer to this question is no, it says nothing about the single thread by which the AGW narrative hangs. If youāre serious about understanding the real threat of CO2, then you need to seek the answer to just one question: is there any real-world evidence that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system (i.e. the mechanism that amplifies a less than 1C āmolehillā into a greater than 4C āmountainā)?”
Okay, fine. We can make predictions based on models but nobody’s been able to do a demonstration. Let’s assume that your requirement is a reasonable one. On the surface, demonstrating that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system seems difficult without a possibly globally fatal experiment. Instead, for the purpose of this dialog, what kind of odds, on a strictly personal level, do you, Dave Salt, give the AGW narrative of being correct?
1 in 10? 1 in 50? 1 in 100? If you went to Vegas and bet against the AGW guys, what kind of odds would you figure?
“…people are preparing to force upon us major economic and social changes that will likely impoverish the global population and, worst of all, perpetuate human suffering in the third world.”
I can’t resist observing that your conjecture sounds a bit alarmist.
The global population is ALREADY impoverished. Regarding human suffering, is it your thesis that a forced transition to energy sources other than wood, coal and oil will cause the suffering of humans in the third world to rise? Can you explain?
Please address my second two questions:
2. What are the stakes if anti-AGW forces are correct? What are the stakes if AGW climate researchers are correct? Similarly, what are the odds?
3. Who are the anti-AGW interests and what do they have to gain? Who are the AGW interests and what do they have to gain?
The odds are irrelevant. Science is about explaining what actually happens; predicting is a form of testing the explanation, nothing more. When it becomes a matter of driving public policy it becomes politics, not science, and the question of who’s right (as opposed to, who can win the argument — far from being the same thing goes out the window. The pro-AGW dogmatists you call “climate researchers” brought this on themselves by trying to drive policy.
Wait — I thought we were all on the payrolls of the insurance industry, now you’re telling us we’re also on the payrolls of the oil companies?
Somebody’s been intercepting my paychecks!
McGehee, you reprinted both of my questions and then declined to answer either of them. I think they were valid and reasonable questions in the context of any discussion of AGW. Given your observation that all climate researchers who stipulate AGW are “pro-AGW dogmatists”, I’ll take that as an indication that any pro-AGW data is irrelevant before it is presented where you’re concerned.
In the absence of a definitive answer, which can only be obtained by waiting to see what happens, odds are often appropriate in science; my experimental physicist father would have argued that virtually every answer in science should be couched in statistical terms. You’re right, though; in this case, they’re pretty much entirely speculation. We’re left with the choice of an answer that can’t be obtained except by waiting for a possibly intolerable outcome, or completely subjective odds. The stakes, if we are to believe atmospheric chemists, are as high as they have ever been.
Regarding my second question, I didn’t tell you anything. I didn’t even imply.
Dave Klingler write: “On the surface, demonstrating that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system seems difficult without a possibly globally fatal experiment.”
No, it isn’t. If the models reflect the real-world system then a good scientist should be able to work out some unique signature that we could test today (e.g. the ” hot spot” in the equatorial troposphere).
You cannot argue the science so you hide behind the precautionary principle by asking me “what what kind of odds would you figure?”. Well, just suppose I figure that the current AGW narrative is a 100% certainty, then what would I do?
The answer, which also covers your 2nd question, is to apply a strategy of ‘adaptation’ rather than ‘mitigation’, which is the currently favored approach. Mitigation means preventing the growth of third world counties by denying them access to cheap energy, which in turn will perpetuate their already impoverished state — I regard this as genocide by inaction! Moreover, even the most draconian acts of mitigation — bar the removal of humans from the face of the planet — will still result in significant levels of climate change and so begs the question “is it worth it?”.
Adaptation, on the other hand, will more likely enable us to cope with the worst impacts of climate change, while enabling improved conditions in the third world. Moreover, if the AGW narrative is wrong, it leaves us with legacy technologies that will still be of some benefit to our future well-being.
So, maybe I shouldn’t be so negative about the ‘precautionary principle’, just the way that it’s currently being sold (i.e. mitigation). There, is that sufficient an answer to misdirect people away from the original question?
Let me give a try:
If the anti-CAGW forces are correct, and we take steps to address a non-problem, growth will be stymied, if not downright negative for years. Billions of otherwise preventable deaths will occur. Massive unemployment will be the norm. Advancement in fields such as medicine, housing, agricultural, and most high technology will either halt or reverse course. Political unrest will unfold. There will be increases in crime and other sociological pathologies such as alcholoism, drug abuse, and spousal battery. Riots will blossom in the streets, and not a few governments will fall. Warfare over control of what vital resources are left will erupt. In the worst case, full civilizational collapse could ensue.
If the CAGW advocates are correct, and we do nothing, we will get small increases in temperature, and we will adapt.
The odds of these things happening given the assumed circumstances are almost certain.
The odds of CAGW are small. The odds of no CAGW are concomitantly large. This is my own judgment, but the defense would detract from the previous points so, I demur from presenting it at this time.
The anti-CAGW interests are every man, woman, and child who wants a good life, and a better life for their children.
The CAGW interests are every anal retentive sod who thinks his or her poo vanishes when he or she flushes the toilet, believes that choices do not require trade-offs, and is a supreme egotist who cannot wrap his or her mind around the vastness of even this one tiny world relative to his or her own self. What they have to gain is a smug assurance in their own self-righteousness, and sustenance of the delusion that the world revolves around them.
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to global warming is that if climatologists are right we donāt have any time to ponder.
It needs to be pointed out every so often that the problem with a reasoned, calm and thoughtful approach to religion is that if Muslims are right we donāt have any time to ponder — if you die an infidel, you will burn in hell forever. And 1.2 billion people have “signed the petition.” We must all embrace Islam — now!
See the problem here? Don’t you think that the answer isn’t just “doing something,” in a perceived crisis, it’s “doing the right something”? (Or doing nothing, if for example the crisis doesn’t really exist.) As Sir Humphrey Appleby said on “Yes, Prime Minister” …
“Politician’s logic: We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do it.”
I wrote: āOn the surface, demonstrating that positive feedbacks dominate the climate system seems difficult without a possibly globally fatal experiment.ā
Dave Salt wrote: “No, it isnāt. If the models reflect the real-world system then a good scientist should be able to work out some unique signature that we could test today (e.g. the ā hot spotā in the equatorial troposphere).”
I.e. build a climate model, test it against reality, do the difficult science and buy the vast computing power necessary to keep adjusting the model until it works. We’re doing that now. The model matches in some places.
Dave Salt wrote: ‘You cannot argue the science so you hide behind the precautionary principle by asking me āwhat what kind of odds would you figure?ā. ‘
Certainly not. I won’t try to argue the science because I am not a climatologist. But then, if I were a climatologist, anything I said would be dismissed as Nazism or dictatorial dogma or a get-rich conspiracy, wouldn’t it? For the sake of this dialog I will be glad that I am not an expert.
Dave Salt: “Mitigation means preventing the growth of third world counties by denying them access to cheap energy, which in turn will perpetuate their already impoverished state ā I regard this as genocide by inaction!”
The first observation that I have is that third-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy. Petroleum has almost always been tightly controlled, and energy costs are only going up. The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Secondly, the only way that third world countries will ever get cheap energy is if the West + China develops it first. That’s a fact, and it’s happening already. This is an effect of capitalism. A strong market has been created.
Manufacturing costs for solar cells have now dropped below a dollar a watt, efficiencies have climbed to 42%, and every forecast I’ve read indicates that progress will continue. Likewise, I’ve never seen more progress in fusion than in the past three years. People are finally starting to realize that we can rely on other materials and methods for fission than the ones we invented sixty years ago. Thanks to big IGBTs and ceramic bearings, wind and wave power are finally viable. Storage technologies are enjoying a renaissance, in large part because of the automobile market. I get several materials science newsletters, and the progress changes daily for the same reason. The changes in materials science are nothing short of jaw-dropping. Everything is about to get much, much lighter, electric motors included.
Cheap energy will not come from oil, gas or coal. Third World countries do not have enough soldiers or diplomats to secure their oil supplies. Cheap energy for Third World countries can ONLY come from other sources.
Then again, your characterization of the energy needs of the Third World needs updating. Third World development is shaping up to be far more efficient than ours. They’re installing wireless mesh infrastructure first, using solar-powered cell phones and tablets for internet access, building highly-insulated houses, and when they get around to building more roads their vehicles will have regenerative braking. Look at where Google is doing most of its wireless deployment: Africa. We’re being leapfrogged.
Dave Salt wrote: ‘Adaptation, on the other hand, will more likely enable us to cope with the worst impacts of climate change, while enabling improved conditions in the third world. Moreover, if the AGW narrative is wrong, it leaves us with legacy technologies that will still be of some benefit to our future well-being.’
Dave. No. Your characterization of the worst impacts of climate change is off by orders of magnitude. You are vastly underestimating the power our local star dumps on us every day. I have planetary geologist friends who in all seriousness sit around and calculate tipping points using major asteroid impacts as energy references. If anything will make you blink…
Already, in geological terms, I’m not exaggerating when I say we’re in the middle of a global mass extinction.
This post has gotten pretty long. To sum up
– We have all the pieces we need to reinvent our way of life and make it better without sacrificing anything.
– Historically, new and more efficient products have always brought monetary gains, new markets and more new technologies
– The technologies that are being invented are relevant and beneficial to the Third World.
– The costs of adaptation dwarf the costs of mitigation, especially so given that mitigation stands to be a technological windfall.
– And for those of us that are interested, all of these technologies are required for space travel.
Bart:
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
“build a climate model, test it against reality, do the difficult science and buy the vast computing power necessary to keep adjusting the model until it works. Weāre doing that now.”
No, the analysis has really only showed that anything we are experiencing now humans in the past have already experienced and effectively dealt with already.
“if I were a climatologist, anything I said would be dismissed as Nazism or dictatorial dogma.
Oh, boohoo, the world’s smallest violin plays, whoa is me.
“The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Sounds like you need to realize how supply and demand works. Those that have it sell to those that need it. Besides, the UN is trying to side step all this by saying that the biggest contributors to global warming are destrying 3rd world ecosystems and therefore need reimbursements to offset their loses. In other words, your just advocating stealing from the rich and giving to the poor so as to spread the wealth.
“I get several materials science newsletters, and the progress changes daily for the same reason. The changes in materials science are nothing short of jaw-dropping.”
Yea, progress is good! Let market forces work out which technologies actually fill the needs the actual people wish and desire. Don’t artificially construct pie in the sky ideals of how everyone is supposed to live and tyr to make a wonder product that no one wants. If it is a product or service that produces meaningful and worthwhile results then well, people will buy it. Again, study supply and demand and then get a clue.
“Cheap energy will not come from oil, gas or coal.”
The fact of the matter is that all the so called “green” technologies only account for 3 percent of our energy production. So, in fact cheap energy is a result of petroleum. Sounds like to me you think some magical energy tree is going to sprout a cool looking magazine cover. Most peope would just assume living in reality to keep the lights on and have petroleum do it for the mean time. Furthermore, I ‘d be willing to wager that any socio-economic problems that exhist withing 3rd world countries are more the result of the local governments of these respective governements self serving the interests of their dictatorial or fascists regimes and less so the interests of their own people. Give people the freedom to innovate and pursue the means of of rightful productive wealth and I am certain you will find a group of so called 3rd world countries doing everything in their power to secure so called cheap means of energy production.
“Your characterization of the worst impacts of climate change is off by orders of magnitude.”
In poker there is a such a thing called a tell. You just showed that you have no idea what your talking about and have little understanding of what a positive feed back is. If the global climate as we know it was so susceptible to these alleged tipping points then how the hell are we even here today? The fact of the matter is that the very climate charts the the AGW proponents have been floating around have every bit of evidence we need in them to dispute the very claims they are trying to make. In otherwords, everything we are seeing today in terms our climate, we have been able to record as to having occured at some time in the past, while humans were living. Many of these trends can be paralleled many times even withing the last 250 years. People adapt, they change and they do what it takes to survive. They didn’t need to a TARP fund or a stimulus to do it either.
“I have planetary geologist friends who in all seriousness sit around and calculate tipping points using major asteroid impacts as energy references.
LoL Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the primary result of any calculated tipping point may have been THE FREAKING ASTEROID IMPACT!!! My god man, you want to debate this complicated subject yet this shows you have so relevant perspective on anything. Get a grip!
“Iām not exaggerating when I say weāre in the middle of a global mass extinction
LOL! Warm climate periods are generally linked to some of the most diverse ecological times of our world. And they are historically advantageous to humans in general. Put the bong down and get a grip on reality brother.
The first observation that I have is that third-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy. Petroleum has almost always been tightly controlled, and energy costs are only going up. The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
This is simply incorrect. Petroleum is not tightly controlled and never has been. Plenty of oil and LNG go to less developed countries (there’s no true undeveloped country aside from Somalia and even they get petro).
Already, in geological terms, Iām not exaggerating when I say weāre in the middle of a global mass extinction.
While true, what does that matter? It’s worth noting here that the vast majority of the species that are dying were marginal to begin with. How much should we coddle lifeforms that have overspecialized, are too delicate, and have a ecological range that one can walk through in a day? Especially if they would have died anyway in a few millennia? Also we have no idea about the natural extinction rate in the absence of human intervention. The fossil record would vastly understate extinction rates since as far as I can tell, most species never get fossilized.
– We have all the pieces we need to reinvent our way of life and make it better without sacrificing anything.
Sheer conjecture. Not based on fact.
– Historically, new and more efficient products have always brought monetary gains, new markets and more new technologies
Broken window fallacy.
– The technologies that are being invented are relevant and beneficial to the Third World.
So are the technologies that they would replace. What isn’t being replaced is the lost economic activity that results.
– The costs of adaptation dwarf the costs of mitigation, especially so given that mitigation stands to be a technological windfall.
Conjecture, not based on fact. Truth is that adaptation is cheap. It’s a lot easier to move people and infrastructure than claimed. For example, the US and it’s current infrastructure appeared over the course of a century. There’s no reason that we can’t over the course of a few centuries adapt to any climate changes that occur. Less viable land slowly loses value while more valuable land gains. People move. It’s not a significant problem.
– And for those of us that are interested, all of these technologies are required for space travel.
That’s nice, but higher economic activity and the current technologies are also a benefit to space travel and other uses of space.
Finally, as I’ve said elsewhere, if the precautionary principle had to eat its own dogfood, it’d never be implemented. It is a dangerously wrong risk assessment. In particular, I see no reason for the talk about human extinction from global warming. No one has ever seriously proposed a mechanism by which that would happen. Using the precautionary principle to enforce this vague hysteria is simply another example of why it shouldn’t ever be used.
Klinger, I think my label for your pro-AGW types was just as reasonable as your
juxtaposed to your warm and fuzzy
You don’t even see your own bias there, do you?
“Weāre at an early in the same process, but that process is moving forward.”
Molon Lave.
Josh Reiter wrote: ‘No, the analysis has really only showed that anything we are experiencing now humans in the past have already experienced and effectively dealt with already.’
No national or international scientific body of import agrees with you.
āThe idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Josh wrote: “Sounds like you need to realize how supply and demand works. Those that have it sell to those that need it.”
Or rather, want it and are willing to pay for it. Like I said…
Josh wrote: “Besides, the UN is trying to side step all this by saying that the biggest contributors to global warming are destrying 3rd world ecosystems and therefore need reimbursements to offset their loses. In other words, your just advocating stealing from the rich and giving to the poor so as to spread the wealth.”
Not sure where you got any of this. Actually, I’m advocating selling new technologies we already have or will predictably perfect soon to third world nations, which is the only way they’re going to get the cheap energy in question.
Josh wrote: “Yea, progress is good! …Again, study supply and demand and then get a clue.”
I’m sure the words “supply and demand” don’t mean at all what you think they mean. In the case of energy, we’ve artificially subsidized the costs of the currently popular energy sources. Remove the subsidies and the free market would most likely choose different solutions which are, coincidentally, more advantageous for us as a species in the long run.
āCheap energy will not come from oil, gas or coal.ā
Josh wrote: “The fact of the matter is that all the so called āgreenā technologies only account for 3 percent of our energy production.”
No argument here. See above.
Josh wrote: “So, in fact cheap energy is a result of petroleum.”
Historically, yes, but that’s not set in stone, nor am I sure that it’s been true for approximately the past forty years.
Josh wrote: “Furthermore, I ād be willing to wager that any socio-economic problems that exhist withing 3rd world countries are more the result of the local governments of these respective governements self serving the interests of their dictatorial or fascists regimes and less so the interests of their own people.”
Again, no argument here, Miss South Carolina. Irrelevant, though.
“Give people the freedom to innovate and pursue the means of of rightful productive wealth and I am certain you will find a group of so called 3rd world countries doing everything in their power to secure so called cheap means of energy production.”
You idealist, you. Hmmmm. Iran makes that argument…
Josh wrote: “If the global climate as we know it was so susceptible to these alleged tipping points then how the hell are we even here today?
The questions I’ve presented here relate to prudence, not to a lack of volcanic activity or asteroid impacts in recent geological history. I’m certainly not in any way alleging that we’re anywhere near a tipping point, only that climatology should be taken prudently.
Josh wrote: “The fact of the matter is that the very climate charts the the AGW proponents have been floating around have every bit of evidence we need in them to dispute the very claims they are trying to make.”
I applaud your can-do attitude, and I wish you luck in your new profession. No sane person on the planet wouldn’t love to see you succeed in turning the majority of the geophysical establishment on their heads, most especially including the heads’ owners.
The relevant question is, given the number of intelligent people who have seen this data and believe differently, how many lives are you willing to bet that you can successfully dispute their claims?
Josh wrote: “LoL Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the primary result of any calculated tipping point may have been THE FREAKING ASTEROID IMPACT!!! ”
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that any asteroid impact may have been caused by a calculated tipping point.
Josh wrote: āLOL! Warm climate periods are generally linked to some of the most diverse ecological times of our world.”
Periods of rapid and extreme change are generally linked to mass extinctions. My younger sister is a biologist who is paid to count and record extinct species. The information she supplies has been surprising and worrisome.
Josh wrote: “And they are historically advantageous to humans in general.”
To what history are you referring? Keep in mind that we’re not talking about nice sunny days. We’re talking about coastal flooding and acidified oceans.
Josh wrote: “Put the bong down and get a grip on reality brother.”
You got the wrong guy, there.
Karl Hallowell wrote: “Petroleum is not tightly controlled and never has been. Plenty of oil and LNG go to less developed countries (thereās no true undeveloped country aside from Somalia and even they get petro).”
Petroleum is indeed tightly controlled by commercial interests and has been for most of its history. Oil and LNG go to whoever is willing to pay the most for them. As oil and LNG grow more scarce, without sources of energy to fill in the gap, undeveloped countries will be last in line.
Karl Hallowell wrote: ” – We have all the pieces we need to reinvent our way of life and make it better without sacrificing anything.
Sheer conjecture. Not based on fact.”
Generation: TR5-9
Energy storage: TR5-8
Lighter vehicle materials: TR9
Higher capacity batteries: TR7
Superinsulated homes: TR9
Karl Hallowell wrote: “- Historically, new and more efficient products have always brought monetary gains, new markets and more new technologies
Broken window fallacy.”
Not at all. For one thing, we continually pay dearly to keep this particular window intact. Further, it’s not much of a stretch to suppose that cheap solar cells will sell. High capacity batteries and capacitors are already hot market and have historically been the missing link in many areas. High-strength, low-weight structural materials are in demand at the right price, and prices have now dropped sufficiently that these materials are appearing in a variety of vehicles. Superinsulated homes have been demonstrably cost-effective for several years, and purchase cost parity has been reached with at least one technology (SIP).
Karl Hallowell wrote: “- The technologies that are being invented are relevant and beneficial to the Third World.
So are the technologies that they would replace. What isnāt being replaced is the lost economic activity that results.”
New markets and cost-effective gains in efficiency are always economically advantageous. I’m unable to see your reasoning.
Karl Hallowell wrote: “- The costs of adaptation dwarf the costs of mitigation, especially so given that mitigation stands to be a technological windfall.
Conjecture, not based on fact. Truth is that adaptation is cheap. Itās a lot easier to move people and infrastructure than claimed. For example, the US and itās current infrastructure appeared over the course of a century. Thereās no reason that we canāt over the course of a few centuries adapt to any climate changes that occur. Less viable land slowly loses value while more valuable land gains. People move. Itās not a significant problem.”
First of all, over the course of a few decades, not centuries, we’re going to be transitioning out of petroleum, anyway. Is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities would be cheaper than transitioning to carbon-neutral technologies?
Second, what will be the effects of this shrinking habitable territory? I would predict new conflict, at the least, over arable land and habitable living space. If we can minimize these effects now by getting ahead of the problem, should we not do so?
Karl Hallowell wrote: “- And for those of us that are interested, all of these technologies are required for space travel.
Thatās nice, but higher economic activity and the current technologies are also a benefit to space travel and other uses of space.”
So far, not enough. We need light energy storage technologies for space travel. We need high strenth-to-weight ratio structural materials. Most especially, though, we need nuclear-based energy for propulsion; chemical rocket ISPs aren’t even enough to make brief lunar visits practically possible. One advantage of increased attention to fission and fusion is that we get space travel.
Karl Hallowell wrote: “Finally, as Iāve said elsewhere, if the precautionary principle had to eat its own dogfood, itād never be implemented. It is a dangerously wrong risk assessment. In particular, I see no reason for the talk about human extinction from global warming. No one has ever seriously proposed a mechanism by which that would happen. Using the precautionary principle to enforce this vague hysteria is simply another example of why it shouldnāt ever be used.”
Again, is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities over the next few centuries will be cheaper than transitioning right now to more efficient technologies that we have already?
Dave Klingler wrote:
But perhaps presuming the existence of a “calculated tipping point” isn’t necessary to explain radical climate change if there was an impact event, instead.
If you aren’t aware of it, there’s a growing body of evidence that the rapid climate changes of the Younger Dryas period may have been the result of an asteroid or comet impact on or above the Laurentide Ice Sheet north of the Great Lakes about 12,900 years ago — the so-called Clovis comet event. A cometary impact event also may explain the existence of the Carolina bays.
Although this hypothesis is controversial, the evidence for it is far more extensive and far more easily confirmable than any evidence for catastrophic AGW. The researchers who are advancing the hypothesis are sharing their data and would love to have others working independently on the problem.
Dave Klingler wrote: āWeāre doing that now. The model matches in some places.ā
Where and to what degree? Please give me just one example of real-world behaviour that AGW can explain but natural global warming cannot. However, please donāt tell me that the models say it must be CO2 as thereās no other way to align them with past-climate records, because all that tells me is that the models may be missing something significant (e.g. the effect of clouds); a fact that the IPCC clearly states in all of their reports.
Dave Klingler wrote: āI wonāt try to argue the science because I am not a climatologist.ā
If youāre sufficiently interested you should be able to seek out the key details and issues and then use common sense to determine if they tell a sensible and complete story. One of the basic fallacies of the AGW narrative is that only climate scientists are qualified to argue the science (i.e. argument by authority). This smack of arrogance and/or laziness and undermines ordinary peopleās respect for science because it makes them think scientists are being deliberately obtuse in order to guard their āsecretsā. This perception has only been strengthened by the leaked CRU emails.
Dave Klingler wrote: āthird-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy.ā
Whether thatās true or not, how will banning them from using cheap fossil fuels help them ādevelopā their way out of poverty? You assume the West and China will provide them with cheap clean energy sources yet they currently fail to provide sufficient cheap/basic tools to provide clean water and fight malaria ā things that are killing millions of children today! If they cannot deliver on the latter, who or what is going to make them deliver on the former?
Dave Klingler wrote: āAlready, in geological terms, Iām not exaggerating when I say weāre in the middle of a global mass extinction.ā
This may be a reasonable statement, bearing in mind that life tends to do less well in cooler climates and that weāre in a relatively cool period, geologically speaking (http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). However, I see no evidence that CO2 is the main cause of this, though I do believe humans may bear some responsibility via a range of other activities (e.g. deforestation, over-fishing, toxic waste).
Dave, you whole line of reasoning is based upon the acceptance that catastrophic AGW is real, that we should adopt the āprecautionary principleā and, more importantly, concentrate out efforts and resources on āmitigationā instead of āadaptationā. However, if it turns out turns out that catastrophic natural global warming (NGW) is real, itās obvious that mitigation is not only a waist but, more importantly, does nothing to alleviate the negative impacts of NGW. Looked at in this way, itās clear to me that āmitigationā (i.e. decarbonisation) is not just wrong, itās positively suicidal!
I think this demonstrates just how much confusion the current AGW narrative generated amongst genuinely concerned people. Itās tried to persuade us that thereās just one central villain (i.e. CO2) responsible for most of the worldās ecological problems and that if we focus all our efforts in stopping it (i.e. decarbonisation) weāll have essentially solve the problem. To me, this is utter nonsense because the huge range of real ecological problems (deforestation, over-fishing, toxic waste, etc.) stem from a huge range of causes that can only be tackled on case-by-case basis. It not only gives us a false sense of security but worse still, it diverts and dilutes our resources and efforts to tackle these demonstrably real and serious problems.
Petroleum is indeed tightly controlled by commercial interests and has been for most of its history. Oil and LNG go to whoever is willing to pay the most for them. As oil and LNG grow more scarce, without sources of energy to fill in the gap, undeveloped countries will be last in line.
In that case, I don’t see the point of saying that these resources are “tightly controlled” since you can spend money (even so-called “undeveloped” countries can spend money) and gain the opportunity to “tightly control” your own piece.
[Technology readiness nonsense]
Technology that has no negative consequence: TR0
New markets and cost-effective gains in efficiency are always economically advantageous. Iām unable to see your reasoning.
I already explained why you are wrong. It’s not my problem that you can’t see the obvious. You create these markets by introducing inefficiencies and destroying value. That’s the broken window. If these were inherently economically advantageous, then they’d evolve naturally without the need for an economically ignorant government to destroy existing infrastructure.
First of all, over the course of a few decades, not centuries, weāre going to be transitioning out of petroleum, anyway. Is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities would be cheaper than transitioning to carbon-neutral technologies?
Cite some real science you idiot. If anyone has evidence of radical sea level rise, they haven’t come up with it yet. We don’t have time to debate every vague half-fear you might have. The fact is that no genuine research or models have forecast significant sea level risings on time scales of decades. Even the worst, gloom and doom forecast from the CRU (which came out last month) forecasts a mere 6C rise in temperature within a century. That won’t cause serious sea level rise on the order of decades.
So far, not enough. We need light energy storage technologies for space travel. We need high strenth-to-weight ratio structural materials. Most especially, though, we need nuclear-based energy for propulsion; chemical rocket ISPs arenāt even enough to make brief lunar visits practically possible. One advantage of increased attention to fission and fusion is that we get space travel.
While it’s nice to have better technologies, I don’t see your points. First, for space travel, most of it is in 100% sunshine. No need for “light energy storage”. Chemical rockets already make lunar visits “practically possible”. Apollo demonstrated the technology.
How does the modest need for better space technologies require that we sabotage our economy? My view is that switching now to some other arbitrary energy infrastructure on the irrational basis that CO2 emissions are really bad will actually hamper anything we do in space simply because we’d be destroying wealth that would otherwise be invested in space technologies.
Again, is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities over the next few centuries will be cheaper than transitioning right now to more efficient technologies that we have already?
Hell yes. You fail to understand that the global economy is growing. By the end of the century, we’re on track to have more than a full order of magnitude greater wealth per person than we did at the start. That means the longer we put off dealing with global warming, the more wealth and resources we have available for dealing with it. Further, this wealth will result in more mobile and resourceful developed societies far more capable of dealing with the modest effects of global warming. They’ll also be far more capable of space development and exploration.
OTOH, if we take the hit now, that reduces our economic growth immediately, greatly reducing future growth and development. Frankly, I think the damage will be a lot greater than proponents imagine, not that most of them care. They have consistently failed to understand the damage from similar initiatives (for example, the disastrous US ecological measures of the 70’s which sparked the decades long movement of industry from the US to other countries).
AGW and the currently ongoing mass extinction are connected, but not causally in either direction – at least not strongly. Clear-cutting of tropical forests, for example, contributes to anthropogenic increases in CO2 levels and also to extinctions – but one does not cause the other.
However, this might well change if AGW becomes an indisputable fact. This is largely because the threatened animal species may well be able to move, but the plants (particularly trees) that many of them depend on cannot – at least not in the likely timescale. Given a few hundred years, tropical trees might well grow in the UK, for example – but the timescale may well be a lot shorter than that.
I find it interesting that many, perhaps most, of the things that we in the West, and particulary you in the USA, need to do in order to make sure AGW doesn’t happen are things we ought to be doing, anyway, for other reasons – most of them connected with terrorism and jihad, but not all. For example, a rapidly increasing US tax on gasoline would improve vehicle efficiencies by the market forces we all know and love, but also reduce the income of people who want to make us all either slaves or corpses, and they are not particular which.
For example, if we succeed in getting one of the two fusion approaches that might actually work (focus fusion and Polywell, definitely not tokamak) to work, then we have clean power for ever, and both of these approaches might well lead to much less centralisation than is currently the case – as both approaches will probably work in fairly small units.
For example, OTEC gets us much more productive sea areas and therefore cheaper food, as long as you like fish.
For example, SPS gets us – by necessity – a much bigger presence in space and by extension the ability to prevent some other sorts of disaster, notably asteroid impacts. This same presence in space also gets us the best defense against some other problems (such as Yellowstone letting rip, for example), the best defense against which is not to be there when they happen. Or to put it another way, some more baskets to put our priceless eggs in.
So what ought to be done? Build nukes – lots of nukes – to a safe design, for example pebblebed. Put serious money into Polywell and focus fusion, OTEC and wave power. Put serious money into cheap space access – and don’t have NASA do it; do it by means of prizes, large ones. And also into biofuels, oif which the most promising is growing oil-producing algae.
Pay for some of this by stopping, immediately, all efforts concerning ground solar and wind power – both of which have truly terrible power density and reliability. And start ramping up US gasoline and diesel taxes, rapidly – maybe 10% per year. The oil products industry does not pay anything like the true costs of oil, in particular military costs. Time it started.
Lastly – the real problem with the AGW discussion is insufficient data. At the moment, the best way of approaching this is modelling, putting in as much detail as possible. The problem here is computer power. Any of you can help with this. Check out climateprediction.net. Basically, it’s a SETI@home-style climate modelling project that uses your spare computer cycles to run some some models that even the world’s biggest supercomputers can’t manage.
Fletcher, I have to mostly disagree. While some portion of the cost of the US military probably should be borne by fuel taxes, I don’t think it’ll turn out to be that significant, maybe $1 per gallon, that’s roughly 30-40% of current gas price before taxes. Further, I see oil trade as a avenue for taming Middle East theocracy rather than the other way around.
Moving on, I have a comment about models. Models are not a substitute for data. No matter how good your model is, if it’s based on bad data, then it will be a bad model.
Karl Hallowell @December 6th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Very thoughtful and well put.
Fletcher Christian @ December 7th, 2009 at 5:10 am
“For example, a rapidly increasing US tax on gasoline would improve vehicle efficiencies by the market forces we all know and love, but also reduce the income of people who want to make us all either slaves or corpses, and they are not particular which.”
And, also destroy our competitiveness with nations which decide not to constrain themselves so arbitrarily. Why do you believe an impoverished Middle East would generate fewer fanatics hating the West? What makes you think draining their overall wealth would hinder the maleficent activities of the most committed? How much did bin Laden spend to bring down the two towers?
“For example, if we succeed in getting one of the two fusion approaches that might actually work (focus fusion and Polywell, definitely not tokamak) to work, then we have clean power for ever, and both of these approaches might well lead to much less centralisation than is currently the case – as both approaches will probably work in fairly small units.”
Great, but like Karl said, TR0. Why does this require wrecking our economy?
“Pay for some of this by stopping, immediately, all efforts concerning ground solar and wind power – both of which have truly terrible power density and reliability.”
Now, you’re talking sense.
“Any of you can help with this. Check out climateprediction.net. Basically, itās a SETI@home-style climate modelling project that uses your spare computer cycles to run some some models that even the worldās biggest supercomputers canāt manage.”
No matter how powerful the computer, it is still vulnerable to GIGO.
Dave Salt wrote:
Dave Klingler wrote: āWeāre doing that now. The model matches in some places.ā
Where and to what degree? Please give me just one example of real-world behaviour that AGW can explain but natural global warming cannot. However, please donāt tell me that the models say it must be CO2…”
Arguing on these bases gets away from the point I was trying to make: arguing over the science and the ramifications is different from being completely dismissive, and if one is not completely dismissive the ramifications need to be considered seriously. There’s no scientific proof that AGW can be dismissed, is not a serious model or doesn’t have serious consequences. Based on the finite probability that the current AGW model (as a whole, not in detail) is substantively correct, the stakes must be considered. The stakes are so substantial that mitigation must also be considered.
That’s not to say that adaptation shouldn’t also be considered, and in fact if the current AGW has any worth adaptation is inescapable.
Dave Salt wrote:’
Dave Klingler wrote: āI wonāt try to argue the science because I am not a climatologist.ā
If youāre sufficiently interested you should be able to seek out the key details and issues and then use common sense to determine if they tell a sensible and complete story…’
Absolutely, but it gets away from my basic point. A large body of scientists who are paid to try their best to make an assessment of a serious issue returns with a conclusion that many people don’t like for various reasons. Fine. We may not like the conclusion and we may believe that it can be argued, but the consequences of the conclusion are highly negative and deserve a mitigation response. The degree of that response is dictated by what’s possible, what’s required to meet the threat posed in the required time frame and the cost effectiveness of the response versus the consequences of the threat.
Dave Salt wrote:’
Dave Klingler wrote: āthird-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy.ā
Whether thatās true or not, how will banning them from using cheap fossil fuels help them ādevelopā their way out of poverty…”
1. Oil production is not going to increase.
2. If the current users don’t use less of it, the supply will not increase.
3. If manufacturable substitutes are developed, Third World countries will initially become importers rather than suppliers.
4. Third World countries do not have the economic resources to build oil-based economy infrastructure in the next decade or two.
5. While we are discovering ways to manufacture oil substitutes, we have also made large breakthroughs in cost-effective technologies that don’t require that infrastructure.
6. Third World countries can take advantage of these technologies immediately.
I personally believe that whether or not Third World countries agree to limit their emissions is by and large a moot point, and certainly so if oil prices rise.
I’ve seen some good progress recently on water and malaria, but those are different topics.
Dave Salt wrote: ā…I do believe humans may bear some responsibility via a range of other activities (e.g. deforestation, over-fishing, toxic waste).”
My gut instinct is that in large part deforestation is to blame for our current atmosphere concerns. At many times in the past the atmosphere’s taken some major damage and recovered just fine. What percentage is emissions and what percentage deforestation requires speculation that I’m currently unwilling to attempt.
Dave Salt wrote: “Dave, you whole line of reasoning is based upon the acceptance that catastrophic AGW is real,”
That would be “the acceptance that catastrophic AGW *may* be real…”
Dave Salt wrote: “…that we should adopt the āprecautionary principleā and, more importantly, concentrate out efforts and resources on āmitigationā instead of āadaptationā. However, if it turns out turns out that catastrophic natural global warming (NGW) is real, itās obvious that mitigation is not only a waist but, more importantly, does nothing to alleviate the negative impacts of NGW. Looked at in this way, itās clear to me that āmitigationā (i.e. decarbonisation) is not just wrong, itās positively suicidal!”
I’m not sure anybody would argue that decarbonization by itself is a solution to GW, or that any informed person would say that it’s the entire cause. Certainly deforestation gets a lot of attention. I agree that neglecting other problems would be drastically inadequate. We need to find viable ways to feed ourselves, cease poisoning ourselves and make allowances for the fact that we have evolved to fit the world as it stands today, with current temperatures and air composition.
Dave Salt wrote:”…just one central villain (i.e. CO2) responsible for most of the worldās ecological problems and that if we focus all our efforts in stopping it (i.e. decarbonisation) weāll have essentially solve the problem. ”
Nonetheless, if there’s a good chance that CO2 emissions are a single-point failure mode for the planet in its current form, that needs to be addressed. I’m pretty sure that the reasons all of those other problems you mentioned aren’t getting as much air time currently is that they’ve been around a long time as issues and they’re inarguable. Another reason is that there’s a lot of money against the very issue of any global warming whatsoever which continues to pay for the sowing of confusion on the topic.
Regardless, I’ve seen more progress on other energy technologies in the past two years than I’ve seen in the previous forty. I haven’t in the past taken PV systems seriously, but a KW of PV panels sitting on my roof in the next couple of years may actually be cheaper than the power I currently buy from PNM. That’s more attractive to a Third World buyer than a central power solution that requires the legalities and installation costs we’ve come to take for granted for distributed electricity.
http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23980/?nlid=2536
Dave Klingler wrote: “Thereās no scientific proof that AGW can be dismissed, is not a serious model or doesnāt have serious consequences.”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on those promoting the AGW narrative to provide the proof. Using your logic I could argue that there’s no scientific proof that aliens aren’t abducting people, so we must have a defense program against UFO’s.
Dave Klingler wrote: “A large body of scientists who are paid to try their best to make an assessment of a serious issue returns with a conclusion that many people donāt like for various reasons”.
I’m not going to say much more because we seem to be going in circles. However, I’ll note that most of the concerns being pushed at the Copenhagen conference are based upon projections far worse than those made by the IPCC, whose work is criticized by many for not reflecting the real extremes of AGW. So, if you’re worried about the way the skeptics think, you should be just as worried, if not more so, by the true-believers because it’s they who are now driving the political agenda.
Bart, at the moment models are all we have. Making them consider more things has to be good, right?
I also fail to see how reducing the American balance of payments deficit by subtle pressure towards fuel-efficient cars is going to hurt the American economy. Unless, that is, American car makers are completely incapable of building them and they would therefore have to be imported. Oh, wait…
Working towards alternative energy approaches that might actually work is more likely to help anyone’s economy than hurt it. If only because in that case more graduate physicists might actually use their skills for something useful instead of selling their mathematical skills to the Wunch – who collectively have done more damage to the American economy (and that of the rest of the West, but you probably don’t give a shit about that) than Imperial Japan managed. A hell of a lot more.
Perhaps the fusion research could be paid for by confiscatory tax on banking industry bonuses. Which is being considered in the UK, by the way. And I’ll vote for that if given a chance.
Karl Hallowell Says: ‘you can spend money (even so-called āundevelopedā countries can spend money) and gain the opportunity to ātightly controlā your own piece.’
Regardless of your definitions of commercial control, no Third World country is going to develop an oil-based infrastructure before oil runs out.
Karl Halowell wrote: “[Technology readiness nonsense]
Technology that has no negative consequence: TR0″
You’re dwelling on the irrelevant. There are no new technologies that have no negative consequences. The technologies I cited have net-positive consequences for their purchasers and for human society. There’s a demand for home insulation because it pays for itself. There’s a demand for lighter cars because people will pay an initial purchase premium to get higher gas mileage. There’s a demand for solar cells. There’s a monstrous demand for higher energy storage density.
Karl Halowell wrote:
‘”New markets and cost-effective gains in efficiency are always economically advantageous. Iām unable to see your reasoning.”
I already explained why you are wrong. Itās not my problem that you canāt see the obvious. You create these markets by introducing inefficiencies and destroying value.’
Bad reasoning. The inefficiencies were introduced long ago, and because of politics and oil subsidies we’re only just now shaking them out. The markets already exist and prices are dropping precipitously. People already buy home insulation, cars that get good gas mileage and batteries that hold more charge. PV cells were handy before they fell below $3/peak watt hour.
Karl Halowell wrote: “Thatās the broken window. If these were inherently economically advantageous, then theyād evolve naturally without the need for an economically ignorant government to destroy existing infrastructure.”
Academic pap! Capitalism chooses what’s expedient, political, well-marketed, entrenched, good for a few players and bad for society on a constant basis. Some inefficiencies hang around for decades. Monopolies and trusts protect their interests all the time without fear of prosecution. I can probably name a dozen products that are no longer in my local grocery store for reasons unrelated to whether they were popular purchases.
Karl Halowell wrote: “First of all, over the course of a few decades, not centuries, weāre going to be transitioning out of petroleum, anyway. Is it your thesis that rebuilding our cities would be cheaper than transitioning to carbon-neutral technologies?
Cite some real science you idiot. [rant about sea levels]’
Why should I cite some real science to prove something I never said? We’ll be transitioning out of petroleum soon. That’s a given. You’re the one who originally said that over the next century and a half we could just as well rebuild our cities inland. That’s nuts. If we’re deploying new technologies we can just as well choose precautionary ones.
Karl Halowell said: ‘
I said:”So far, not enough. We need light energy storage technologies for space travel. We need high strenth-to-weight ratio structural materials. Most especially, though, we need nuclear-based energy for propulsion; chemical rocket ISPs arenāt even enough to make brief lunar visits practically possible. One advantage of increased attention to fission and fusion is that we get space travel.”
While itās nice to have better technologies, I donāt see your points. First, for space travel, most of it is in 100% sunshine. No need for ālight energy storageā. Chemical rockets already make lunar visits āpractically possibleā. Apollo demonstrated the technology.’
There are plenty of times when spacecraft can’t practically have panels deployed, or need to temporarily draw more power than panels would provide. For the same reason storing power can sometimes be lighter than carrying a larger RTG. For planetary rovers, the need for larger energy storage per unit mass is obvious.
Apollo demonstrated nothing other that with the aid of a cold war and some very powerful senators, it’s possible to use a very large rocket to get a very small payload to the Moon, and an even smaller one back to Earth. Practicality was not an issue, nor did it ever rear its head.
Battery, solar cell, lightweight materials and nuclear power plant development and competition are great bonuses for space travel. They’re also off-topic.
Karl Halowell wrote: ‘How does the modest need for better space technologies require that we sabotage our economy? My view is that switching now to some other arbitrary energy infrastructure on the irrational basis that CO2 emissions are really bad will actually hamper anything we do in space simply because weād be destroying wealth that would otherwise be invested in space technologies.’
I referred to bonuses for those who cared, but I made no such statement.
Further, you have yet to provide any solid reasons or examples of why wealth would be destroyed by transitioning to a more energy-efficient infrastructure. You seem to think it’s obvious. Given that replacement equivalents exist now or are entering the markets, it’s not.
I’ve never known any American to make a large sacrifice of any comfort for any reason other than absolute necessity, and I highly doubt anybody will start. I believe that any improvements we make to our carbon footprint will arrive strictly because they’re tolerably devoid of sacrifice or at worst an equal trade. The raw science has already been done to make the transition possible, and the technology already exists in relatively low volumes.
Karl Halowell wrote: ‘Frankly, I think the damage will be a lot greater than proponents imagine, not that most of them care. They have consistently failed to understand the damage from similar initiatives (for example, the disastrous US ecological measures of the 70ās which sparked the decades long movement of industry from the US to other countries).’
Cite some, please. Every movement I can name from the U.S. to another country was done for reasons unrelated to ecological measures. If indeed you consider ecological measures as a whole harmful, what would you prefer as an alternative?
Further, you have yet to provide any solid reasons or examples of why wealth would be destroyed by transitioning to a more energy-efficient infrastructure. You seem to think itās obvious. Given that replacement equivalents exist now or are entering the markets, itās not.
First, because the transition is forced not due to natural economic forces. Second, I’ve ignored this in the past, but why do you think the infrastructure will be more efficient? There some significant efficiencies in a fossil fuel based system. The key one is cost. You get a lot of energy for relatively low cost. It also has great energy densities out there which is an issue for energy stored for use in transportation.
Cite some, please. Every movement I can name from the U.S. to another country was done for reasons unrelated to ecological measures. If indeed you consider ecological measures as a whole harmful, what would you prefer as an alternative?
How about the movement of industry out of the US? That was the movement I referred to.
Dave Klinger, there is some particularly bizarre noise coming from you with respect to oil. I still have no idea why you insist that “third countries”, whatever that means, can’t develop their own energy infrastructure or even buy and use oil (they’ve been doing so for decades). Let me discuss some of the outlandish and wrong statements you’ve made.
The first observation that I have is that third-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy. Petroleum has almost always been tightly controlled, and energy costs are only going up. The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Clearly untrue. If you actually believe what you write, it implies that you don’t even have the slightest clue what goes on in the rest of the world. Not only does what is traditionally thought of as the “Third World” buy considerable oil, but they produce it as well.
Josh wrote: āSounds like you need to realize how supply and demand works. Those that have it sell to those that need it.ā
Or rather, want it and are willing to pay for it. Like I saidā¦
In other words, you imply here that because oil is sold on a market, it is a) tightly controlled and b) “not a drop” goes to a certain category of country. This does not follow. Instead, the fact that there is a fairly competitive market implies that oil is not highly controlled and it is available to anyone, including third world countries, who buys it.
And again:
Petroleum is indeed tightly controlled by commercial interests and has been for most of its history. Oil and LNG go to whoever is willing to pay the most for them. As oil and LNG grow more scarce, without sources of energy to fill in the gap, undeveloped countries will be last in line.
Once again, if you can get oil merely by waving money around, then oil is not “tightly controlled”. “Undeveloped countries” (whatever that means) merely need to offer a little more per barrel to get in front of line.
Cheap energy will not come from oil, gas or coal. Third World countries do not have enough soldiers or diplomats to secure their oil supplies. Cheap energy for Third World countries can ONLY come from other sources.
I don’t see a single viable country which doesn’t have enough soldiers for its oil wells. And the bit about diplomats is a real howler. How many diplomats do you need per well? What do you do with them? Do you pump them down there so that the oil comes out faster? Or do you think diplomacy is won by numbers? The US airdrops a zillion diplomats on Toughluckistan, forcing them to sell their oil to the US rather than to the highest bidder.
Regardless of your definitions of commercial control, no Third World country is going to develop an oil-based infrastructure before oil runs out.
Every country has an oil-based infrastructure. It may not, as in the case of Somalia, be a big part of the country’s economy, but everyone has them!
And as far as “definitions” go, I don’t consider a market even remotely “tightly controlled”, if there’s a lot of competition and I can get what I want by waving some money.
In summary, I see a bunch of bizarrely wrong statements that even a modest amount of thought would disabuse you of considering. Frankly, you need a basic education in economics, particularly the economics of energy infrastructure before any of this will make sense to you. Otherwise, you’ll never be able to understand much less debate anything in this area.
Typo correction
I still have no idea why you insist that āthird countriesā, whatever that means
I meant “Third World countries”. Let me explain why I put this and “undeveloped countries” in quotes.
These are terms that made some sense during the Cold War. There the First World was the western democracies (US, Europe, Japan, etc), the Second World was the Communist countries, and the Third World was everyone else. Those terms are pretty much obsolete. For example, the Second World no longer exists. The Third World consists of a huge variety of countries with disparate economic systems. For example, one would not consider Saudi Arabia a poor country or a country that can’t get a drop of oil. But it was part of the Third World.
Moving on, aside from Somalia (where it’s not clear that anyone is trying), there’s no such thing as an “undeveloped country”. Everyone else is developing their country at some rate. Even the “developed countries” are developing their countries. Which means there really is only one category here, “developing countries”.
Karl Hallowell wrote:
(I wrote) Further, you have yet to provide any solid reasons or examples of why wealth would be destroyed by transitioning to a more energy-efficient infrastructure. You seem to think itās obvious. Given that replacement equivalents exist now or are entering the markets, itās not.
First, because the transition is forced not due to natural economic forces.
Firstly, enough of this amateur economist textbook pap. The world is messy, not neatly deterministic according to whatever you happen to identify as “natural economic forces”, and “natural economic forces” are in and of themselves a construction. When a government decides that a particular technology would be beneficial to society and pumps money into it to get it started, is that a natural economic force? Where oil is concerned, other than “the well has run dry”, in your inventory of “natural economic forces” you’re leaving out a lot of random chance, political dealing, liberal doses of outright bribery and the subsidy of the U.S. Military which, as you’ve stated, seems to cost about a buck per gallon of gasoline (I did go back and check the numbers yesterday, and that’s where it rides). Throw in whatever we pay for healthcare costs as a society for breathing the cocktail of ash, petroleum distillates, CO and whatever else our 200 million U.S. vehicles and however many trucks have been pumping into our air supply, and the real costs of relying on chemical combustion per individual taxpayer would seem to carry a lot of invisible subsidies. Things grow pretty ambiguous when you try to figure out whether gas-powered vehicles have been a winning proposition over EVs for the U.S.. I don’t have a ready answer.
Karl Halowell wrote: Second, Iāve ignored this in the past, but why do you think the infrastructure will be more efficient?
– It is now cheaper to superinsulate a home than to pay heating bills. With a few decisions to optimize insolation that saves money for the homeowner, homes in many parts of the country will stay warm by themselves. I know one guy with a 5000+ sq. ft. home that uses less than $30/month in natural gas during winter. I’ll grant that the results are negative for the utility companies, and CITGO.
– The other night I visited one of my most conservative friends, a guy who has sworn that he will never, ever buy a hybrid automobile, and he surprised me by showing off his new 3-watt LED light fixtures. Although expensive, they do pay for themselves in power savings, and they’re far brighter than the ones they replaced.
– Surprisingly (to me), PV cell manufacturing cost and connect inverters are crossing the point where low-efficiency (10%) PV is just barely cheaper than PNM grid power, albeit only for homeowners who have space on their rooftops (I do).
Where automobiles are concerned, the magical missing technology is still cost-effective energy storage. That also obviously still goes for the various types of solar and wind power.
Karl Halowell wrote: ‘Dave Klingler wrote: Cite some, please. Every movement I can name from the U.S. to another country was done for reasons unrelated to ecological measures. If indeed you consider ecological measures as a whole harmful, what would you prefer as an alternative?
How about the movement of industry out of the US? That was the movement I referred to.
I live in the United States, where the dollar grew so weak that companies from other countries bought up their American counterparts and shut them down, lock, stock and barrel, during the 1980’s, because it was cheap to do it. During the 1990’s the few American manufacturers that were left discovered that labor was cheaper everywhere else, not only because of ecological measures but because of exchange rates, child labor laws, hourly wages, 40-hour work weeks, dormitory-style factories, raw materials close by, unfair subsidies and price-fixing, unfair tariffs and daimyo corporations. Uh, where do you live?
Karl Hallowell wrote:
Dave Klinger, there is some particularly bizarre noise coming from you with respect to oil. I still have no idea why you insist that āthird countriesā, whatever that means, canāt develop their own energy infrastructure or even buy and use oil (theyāve been doing so for decades). Let me discuss some of the outlandish and wrong statements youāve made.
First of all, you’ve repeatedly misspelled my name (I guess you’re not a detail guy) and secondly, “third countries” was not my typo.
The first observation that I have is that third-world countries are already denied access to cheap energy. Petroleum has almost always been tightly controlled, and energy costs are only going up. The idea that you promote has no basis in history or fact. Not a drop of oil or LNG will go to undeveloped countries, and those that have it send it here or China.
Clearly untrue. If you actually believe what you write, it implies that you donāt even have the slightest clue what goes on in the rest of the world. Not only does what is traditionally thought of as the āThird Worldā buy considerable oil, but they produce it as well.
You’re right, if you’re talking about South America. You’re wrong, if you’re talking about most of Africa, Central Asia, some of the former Soviets or most of the Far East. Even China is a net importer, which is why they’ve been selling arms to Iran, Sudan and Somalia.
In other words, you imply here that because oil is sold on a market, it is a) tightly controlled and b) ānot a dropā goes to a certain category of country. This does not follow. Instead, the fact that there is a fairly competitive market implies that oil is not highly controlled and it is available to anyone, including third world countries, who buys it.
Sure, if they can. On the other hand, China builds the refineries and pipelines in Sudan, and the Red Army’s there guarding them. China sells IRBMs to Iran and they partner with Iran to build refineries. They also support Iran against the U.S. in the United Nations. China’s state-owned oil company has been rebuilding Venezuela’s oil infrastructure. They have agreements with virtually every oil producer in South America. They’re involved in territorial disputes over oil with Malaysia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei and Japan, and if you had to bet, who would you bet on?
China has offered Saudi Arabia weapons several times, but so far the Saudis have preferred to ally with the U.S. because we’re their captive market. In return we also support the Saudis with arms, intelligence and in the United Nations. The UK and Europe play the same game with Libya, Congo, etc. That’s why we went to Vietnam, that’s why the Iranians hate the U.K., etc. etc. We all protect our interests. The Chinese don’t send the Red Army to protect a pipeline so that they can send oil to Switzerland.
I donāt see a single viable country which doesnāt have enough soldiers for its oil wells. And the bit about diplomats is a real howler. How many diplomats do you need per well?
And who supplies the arms for those soldiers? And who supplies the “grants” and the “debt forgiveness”? And who sends terrorists home to a hero’s welcome in Libya, or politely looks the other way while Russia disciplines its “terrorists” or invades neighbors?
And as far as ādefinitionsā go, I donāt consider a market even remotely ātightly controlledā, if thereās a lot of competition and I can get what I want by waving some money.
By your definitions, then, most of these markets are tightly controlled. China has waved more money than we have in the Middle East, and so far, we’ve retained access. If we withdraw from the Gulf or lose control of it, that might change.
Frankly, you need a basic education in economics, particularly the economics of energy infrastructure before any of this will make sense to you.
The word “economics” doesn’t mean what you think it does. A basic education in history, current events, diplomacy and business might benefit you as well. I’ve owned various businesses for the past twenty-five years, and been involved in several others. I’ve used a lot of tools other than money to lock up business and keep my competitors out. You just don’t know quite as much as you think you do, Karl.
Btw, Karl, even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, the “Second World” arguably still does, and the Russians have repeatedly told us to stay out of it.
Firstly, enough of this amateur economist textbook pap.
[…]
When a government decides that a particular technology would be beneficial to society and pumps money into it to get it started, is that a natural economic force?
I see the “pap” goes on. No. It’s not a natural economic force. People aren’t making the choice because it is better, cheaper, etc (namely, because they want to), but because government has forced them to. As for the other stuff you mention in that paragraph, I’m for taxing oil at the rate it is subsidized. No need to have the government force us to not chose oil.
You still haven’t answered how many diplomats are needed per well or why “Third World countries” have oil when they don’t “get a drop”.
By your definitions, then, most of these markets are tightly controlled.
No. Look there are parts of the oil infrastructure (like Saudi Arabia’s production) that are tightly controlled. But these are only part of the whole thing. The global market simply is not tightly controlled.
The word āeconomicsā doesnāt mean what you think it does. A basic education in history, current events, diplomacy and business might benefit you as well. Iāve owned various businesses for the past twenty-five years, and been involved in several others. Iāve used a lot of tools other than money to lock up business and keep my competitors out. You just donāt know quite as much as you think you do, Karl.
Yet another demonstration that someone can be economically ignorant yet still run a business (presumably successfully). The skill sets aren’t the same.
Let’s take a similar example. I’m pretty good with math, even picked up a Ph.D. in it. Would you say then that I’m good at business? Of course not. It tells you nothing. Neither does it tell you that I’ll be good in economics (though the math helps some). While business and economics have some things in common, they are far from the same thing. Here, the form of economics we’re looking at is macroeconomics, the “science” (if you will) of the economic statistics and dynamics of large groups of people. How has your business experience prepared you to make policy decisions about a few hundred million people?
My view is simply that almost every person is sufficiently autonomous and competent to make their own decisions. When someone else starts making decisions for them, those decisions will not be informed by the subject’s circumstances. Inherently, the decisions by proxy are suboptimal. And we haven’t even gotten to conflicts of interest where the decision makers are tempted (and very often succumb) to decide in ways that benefit themselves or some group they identify with. I think government has legitimate roles in enforcing the rule of law, contracts, and as the insurer of last resort. I don’t believe forcing hundreds of millions of people to abandon oil-based transportation and heating falls into one of those categories.
Finally, you continue to make silly statements about oil. A cursory glance at the “Third World” countries indicates you are wrong.
Btw, Karl, even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, the āSecond Worldā arguably still does, and the Russians have repeatedly told us to stay out of it.
No, the Russians have “told us” to stay out of a part of what used to be the Second World (namely a few of the former Soviet republics). You can and have argued otherwise (hence, it is by definition “arguable”), but the region that used to be the Second World simply no longer has the ideology or cohesiveness. What defined the Second World (aside from some geographical boundaries) no longer exists.
– The other night I visited one of my most conservative friends, a guy who has sworn that he will never, ever buy a hybrid automobile, and he surprised me by showing off his new 3-watt LED light fixtures. Although expensive, they do pay for themselves in power savings, and theyāre far brighter than the ones they replaced.
Did government hold his hand while he made that choice? No (though government might have mandated the revealing of information that he used to make his choice). Your “most conservative friend” chose to buy the light bulb. I get the impression you think that “conservative” means “always makes bad choices” and hence, are surprised when they act like everybody else. It’s not hypocrisy for a conservative to switch to some other energy infrastructure (and similar decisions) when it is a clearly superior choice.
The thing to note here is that the choice to switch came naturally. Your friend could save money by making the switch, there were a lot of benefits to counter the higher cost of the LED bulbs.
What you seem to be proposing in several places is that you are convinced that certain technologies are cheaper, better, etc, but for some reason people refuse to adopt those technologies. What we see in practice is that people make the choices when the benefit is obvious. I see no reason for government to interfere. The mere fact that government has to force someone to make a decision indicates to me that something must have been wrong with the assumption in the first place. Namely, the choice must not have been that good for the subject.
It puzzles me why you prefer the club of force over finesse. For example, to cover the subsidies the US government has on protecting the oil infrastructure, we could ban oil, or we could levy a suitable tax commensurate with the value of the protection (keep in mind here that the US may choose to overpay for those activities, oil buyers shouldn’t have to pay the full amount for inefficient government).
Karl Hallowell wrote:
Dave Klingler wrote:
Firstly, enough of this amateur economist textbook pap.
[…]
When a government decides that a particular technology would be beneficial to society and pumps money into it to get it started, is that a natural economic force?
I see the āpapā goes on. No. Itās not a natural economic force. People arenāt making the choice because it is better, cheaper, etc (namely, because they want to), but because government has forced them to.
No. Nowhere in my sentence did I mention or imply ‘force’. There are too many examples to count wherein a government decides that a particular technology is beneficial to society, and pumps money into it to get it started. A large number of technologies we use every day began that way: oil, rubber, most medicines, semiconductors and many others. As you point out, products were initially brought to market by ‘unnatural’ forces, but these products were successful nonetheless and have completely changed the face of modern society.
As for the other stuff you mention in that paragraph, Iām for taxing oil at the rate it is subsidized. No need to have the government force us to not chose oil.
We agree. But add a dollar to the price of gasoline (or more if you count the bureaucratic cost of Fatherland, Motherland or Homeland Security), and the break-even point for a hybrid automobile is less than a year with no improvements in technology.
You still havenāt answered how many diplomats are needed per well or why āThird World countriesā have oil when they donāt āget a dropā.
I was wrong. I must modify my wording from “not a drop” to “very few drops”. If Gaddafi wakes up on the wrong side of the bed one day or extremists gain control of the oil supply, it’s possible that almost all the oil might one day go to developing countries, and I will be wrong again.
By your definitions, then, most of these markets are tightly controlled.
No. Look there are parts of the oil infrastructure (like Saudi Arabiaās production) that are tightly controlled. But these are only part of the whole thing. The global market simply is not tightly controlled.
The top ten crude and processed petroleum suppliers to the United States are controlled tightly by either commercial or government forces (or both). Brazil will become a major supplier to world markets in the next few years, and although there are strong forces at play now one could argue that the question in their case is unsettled. China’s and Venezuela’s state-owned companies are sponsoring Brazilian field development. It will probably be settled soon, and either or both winners will be state-owned. Then there’s Russia, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, the half-dozen African states, the North Sea, and the fields the Chinese are attempting to control in the East and South China seas. Everything I’ve just listed is pretty tightly controlled. You could argue Canada, but as long as we pay market price all their production goes straight south because their margins are better on U.S. sales.
You can argue semantics…
The word āeconomicsā doesnāt mean what you think it does. A basic education in history, current events, diplomacy and business might benefit you as well. Iāve owned various businesses for the past twenty-five years, and been involved in several others. Iāve used a lot of tools other than money to lock up business and keep my competitors out. You just donāt know quite as much as you think you do, Karl.
Yet another demonstration that someone can be economically ignorant yet still run a business (presumably successfully). The skill sets arenāt the same.
You have overflown the points by at least a continent. I’m fairly sure you’ve gotten it, and you’re just acting obtuse. No one can use strictly economics to forecast oil availability, oil availability to developing countries is fairly proscribed, and most new economic growth in developing countries must come from non-oil-based sources. Oil is a business. One country can lock another country out of a market through the use of wealth and diplomacy, as I have locked competitors out using the same methods. In point of fact, it has happened many times. The People’s Soldier is not really your friend.
Karl, if we were in the same room I’d have had your wallet several times by now and handed it back to you.
Letās take a similar example. Iām pretty good with math, even picked up a Ph.D. in it…My view is simply that almost every person is sufficiently autonomous and competent to make their own decisions. When someone else starts making decisions for them, those decisions will not be informed by the subjectās circumstances.
With you so far…
Inherently, the decisions by proxy are suboptimal.
That doesn’t follow. More properly, “…decisions by proxy may be suboptimal.” Your field must not be analysis.
I think government has legitimate roles in enforcing the rule of law, contracts, and as the insurer of last resort. I donāt believe forcing hundreds of millions of people to abandon oil-based transportation and heating falls into one of those categories.
As a species we made a decision a long time ago to proscribe individuals from buying nuclear materials in quantities sufficient to create mischief, not only in the United States but elsewhere in the world. We also limited CFC’s a few decades ago. The only reason to limit burning of hydrocarbons would be for a reason similar to the ones above.
You and I disagree on two crucial points:
1. – Whether we should willing to take a risk that the consequences of AGW will be palatable or nil. – I never consider a risk without considering the stakes, and in the decision time allotted to us the stakes strike me as too much to risk.
2. – Whether the consequences of moving to non-fossil-fuel-based energy technologies are good for the world’s economic well-being. – I would contend that the transition would eventually happen by itself because most of the required technologies are already cost-effective in the present, and are growing more-so. I cannot prove that energy storage will arrive any time soon, but the physics and the volume of development dollars are certainly in our favor. To wit, with PV at a buck a watt, wind in abundance and fusion on the way, the economics favor non-fossil energy.
Finally, you continue to make silly statements about oil. A cursory glance at the āThird Worldā countries indicates you are wrong.
Regardless of whether you think that developing countries can and will run right out and buy as much oil a they need from whoever they want, the point is moot. They’ll not be getting their order of magnitude in increased wealth from burning oil. They may get it from burning alcohols or manufactured petroleum fuels, or they may get it from other sources, but not oil.
…3-watt LED light fixtures…far brighter than the ones they replaced.
…Itās not hypocrisy for a conservative to switch to some other energy infrastructure (and similar decisions) when it is a clearly superior choice.
You have missed the point. The point was that my friend went out and purchased a 3-watt light that was as bright as a 150-watt product AND was cost-effective. You have been arguing the idea that becoming more energy-efficient and switching to non-fossil fuels over the next few decades subtracts from our economic well-being. My friend’s three-watt light puts money in his pocket. If everyone made the same decision over a decade’s time, it would put money in everyone’s pockets AND knock down a significant amount of our energy usage.
The thing to note here is that the choice to switch came naturally. Your friend could save money by making the switch, there were a lot of benefits to counter the higher cost of the LED bulbs.
You’re seeing the light. And some of these benefits are good for the economy as a whole. Have you noticed that nobody talks about M1 any more?
What you seem to be proposing in several places is that you are convinced that certain technologies are cheaper, better, etc, but for some reason people refuse to adopt those technologies. What we see in practice is that people make the choices when the benefit is obvious.
Frankly, few have had time to adopt these technologies.
We’ve progressed. Now we agree that at least one energy-saving technology exists that has benefits…
I see no reason for government to interfere. The mere fact that government has to force someone to make a decision indicates to me that something must have been wrong with the assumption in the first place. Namely, the choice must not have been that good for the subject.
I’m not going to parse your statement too carefully, but in general I think that most people agree that the only reason for government to interfere in encouraging through regulation the adoption of a beneficial technology is if there is a significant risk to the public health in remaining with the technology that it replaces.
It puzzles me why you prefer the club of force over finesse.
Never even implied I feel that way. Rhetoric does not become a mathematician. See enumerated disagreements above.
For example, to cover the subsidies the US government has on protecting the oil infrastructure, we could ban oil, or we could levy a suitable tax commensurate with the value of the protection (keep in mind here that the US may choose to overpay for those activities, oil buyers shouldnāt have to pay the full amount for inefficient government).
Sounds fine to me, but practically speaking I’m not sure you’ll ever get away with the idea that a country’s citizens shouldn’t have to pay their inefficient government’s debts. We add up all the places where we subsidize petroleum and we stop. The changeover would happen a lot more quickly, and any idea of having governments push it along would seem superfluous.
Since it’s unlikely that this debate will continue, I’ll just say a few parting words.
1) I mistook your statements about government incentives as implying the use of force.
2) Just because LEDs were a good buy for your friend, doesn’t mean they are in general. Nor does it imply other supposed energy saving technologies are worthwhile.
3) While it is possible for someone else to make an “optimal” decision for me, it’s unlikely to occur. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
4) Ten tightly controlled sources by ten different owners is not a tightly controlled market. Otherwise one could say the same thing of gas stations or grocery stores.
5) Immigration and default are the way citizens avoid paying a country’s debts.
Karl, if we were in the same room Iād have had your wallet several times by now and handed it back to you.
So you say. My take? Don’t quit your day job.