Cap and Fade

[joshcryer]

Cap and Fade

AT the international climate talks in Copenhagen, President Obama is expected to announce that the United States wants to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to about 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. But at the heart of his plan is cap and trade, a market-based approach that has been widely praised but does little to slow global warming or reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It merely allows polluters and Wall Street traders to fleece the public out of billions of dollars.

Supporters of cap and trade point to the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that capped sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-burning power plants — the main pollutants in acid rain — at levels below what they were in 1980. This legislation allowed power plants that reduced emissions to levels below the cap to sell the credit for these excess reductions to other utilities whose emissions were too high, thus giving plant owners a financial incentive to cut back their pollution. Sulfur emissions have been reduced by 43 percent in the two decades since. Great success? Hardly.

Because cap and trade is enforced through the selling and trading of permits, it actually perpetuates the pollution it is supposed to eliminate. If every polluter’s emissions fell below the incrementally lowered cap, then the price of pollution credits would collapse and the economic rationale to keep reducing pollution would disappear.

Worse yet, polluters’ lobbyists ensured that the clean air amendments allowed existing power plants to be “grandfathered,” avoiding many pollution regulations. These old plants would soon be retired anyway, the utilities claimed. That’s hardly been the case: Two-thirds of today’s coal-fired power plants were constructed before 1975.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html

[bananas]

1. Unhelpful Hansen by Paul Krugman

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/unhelpful-hansen/

December 7, 2009, 10:45 am
Unhelpful Hansen

James Hansen is a great climate scientist. He was the first to warn about the climate crisis; I take what he says about coal, in particular, very seriously.

Unfortunately, while I defer to him on all matters climate, today’s op-ed article suggests that he really hasn’t made any effort to understand the economics of emissions control. And that’s not a small matter, because he’s now engaged in a misguided crusade against cap and trade, which is — let’s face it — the only form of action against greenhouse gas emissions we have any chance of taking before catastrophe becomes inevitable.

What the basic economic analysis says is that an emissions tax of the form Hansen wants and a system of tradable emission permits, aka cap and trade, are essentially equivalent in their effects. The picture looks like this:



<snip>

A tax puts a price on emissions, leading to less pollution. Cap and trade puts a quantitative limit on emissions, but from the point of view of any individual, emitting requires that you buy more permits (or forgo the sale of permits, if you have an excess), so the incentives are the same as if you faced a tax. Contrary to what Hansen seems to believe, the incentives for individual action to reduce emissions are the same under the two systems.

<snip>

And as far as I can see, the question about uncertainty is secondary; the fact is that cap and trade works. Hansen admits that the sulfur dioxide cap has reduced pollution, but argues that it didn’t do enough; well, it did as much as it was designed to do. If Hansen thinks it should have done more, he should be campaigning for a lower cap, not trashing the whole program.

<snip>

For here’s the way it is: we have a real chance of getting a serious cap and trade program in place within a year or two. We have no chance of getting a carbon tax for the foreseeable future. It’s just destructive to denounce the program we can actually get — a program that won’t be perfect, won’t be enough, but can be made increasingly effective over time — in favor of something that can’t possibly happen in time to avoid disaster.

[Nihil]

2. Disagree.

> A tax puts a price on emissions, leading to less pollution.
> Cap and trade puts a quantitative limit on emissions, but from the
> point of view of any individual, emitting requires that you buy more
> permits (or forgo the sale of permits, if you have an excess),
> so the incentives are the same as if you faced a tax.
> Contrary to what Hansen seems to believe, the incentives for individual
> action to reduce emissions are the same under the two systems.

They are not the same.

A carbon tax is a diet for a terminally obese person.

A cap & trade programme allows the terminally obese person to
pay his healthy neighbour to diet instead.


Yeah, that'll work ...

[bananas]

3. That analogy doesn't work

It's more like an obese person going on a diet, counting calories.
As both Krugman and Hansen agreed, it worked for other pollutants.

[Nihil]

14. Closer than that ...

> It's more like an obese person going on a diet, counting calories.

Except that cap & trade allows him to pay money to avoid doing anything
about the calories, counted or otherwise. He'll do exactly what the rich
over-consuming nations are doing to the poorer corrupt African countries:
paying money to the right people to get away with murder.


> As both Krugman and Hansen agreed, it worked for other pollutants.

Other pollutant producers were never as powerful, well-funded and
PR-controlling as the fossil fuel lobbies.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

15. But it is the act of paying money that is the equivalent of dieting.

having to pay for the GHG pollution is the entire point of the exercise.

Couple increased costs with the rapid decline that is shaping up in renewable pricing and you have an accelerated pace of change.

As their allowance drops over time, they will have to pay an increasing amount to keep emitting the same quantity. Basic good business practices tell them that they have an escalating expense, so they are driven by profit concerns and risk aversion (their existence is as risk from competitors that are less dependent of carbon) to preempt the drawn out process and take the plunge for large scale change while their balance sheets are most healthy, which is sooner rather than later.

This isn't just theory, it has proven itself in real world applications.

[Nihil]

39. No offence but the act of paying money is *not* the equivalent of dieting ...

... it is the equivalent of paying for your food bill.

A "diet" would be the act of *reducing* one's pollution, *not* just paying
a nominal penalty (disposable as a cost of doing business on the balance sheet)
to buy "allowances" from someone else in order to continue your own polluting
ways.

I *do* understand your theory about escalating expense but disagree with your
optimism that the polluters will choose to "take the plunge for large scale change
... sooner rather than later".

I believe they will choose the tried & tested method of "investing in the
lobbyists" (= pay the necessary bribes) and get any current thoughts of "rules"
turned back into "optional guidelines or suggestions".

:shrug:

[kristopher]

66. When you introduce a constraint it is a "diet"

It is an imposed diet, but a diet nonetheless.

You may choose to disagree with "my theory" but it is actually the past performance of this type of policy that you are disagreeing with, not with me. I'm just relaying to you what the evidence tells us.

While there will certainly be action on the political front both before and after any policy is implemented, once it IS implemented the lobbyists become a hail Mary pass. Businesses do not base their long term strategies on that type of thinking. Again, not my opinion, just a statement of known reaction to risk by corporate actors. The profit motive isn't something that is only useful for predicting bad, unacceptable behavior, you know. It also tells us the way to move corporations in positive directions.

The challenge is getting the policies implemented and then policing the policies.

[kristopher]

16. Delete dupe

[joshcryer]

4. Hansens problem with C&T is not that it can't work, but that in practice...

...it has been a hotbed of corruption, and the *current version* envisioned by the House is essentially ruined by offsets and freebies. Cap and trade would work if it was auctioned based, no freebies, and no arbitrarily defined offsets.

There are also economists who believe C&T cannot work on a global scale (Stilgtz? Spelling?).

[kristopher]

5. That is an invalid criticism.

What you are talking about is unrelated to the effectiveness of the policy, it is a corrupt writing of legislation. The same corruption can make tax policy just as ineffective.

Do you know WHY cap and trade is politically palatable while a tax is not?

[joshcryer]

7. If you say so.

I personally don't put much weight on the politicians to make effectively policy either way.

[kristopher]

8. Then what is your alternative to living in a society that has a structure?

[joshcryer]

9. I am not suggesting any alternatives.

I am only presenting the facts as I see them. Policymakers are not going to make effective climate change policies. Therefore it is necessary to live with what comes of it. You'll be dead. Your son will have to deal with it, but ahh well.

[kristopher]

10. So your solution for the problem is to recommend impossible policies

And then whine that it is the fault someone else when nothing gets done.

Why am I not surprised.

[joshcryer]

11. Nah, I'm warming to your position that nothing can be done.

;)

[kristopher]

12. I'm extremely optimistic, under the circumstances.

[joshcryer]

13. In denial, more like.

[Nederland]

18. Depends on your goal

If your goal is to reduce carbon emissions as fast as possible, then Cap and Trade is the way to go.

If your goal is to punish carbon polluters, a carbon tax is the way to go.

[kristopher]

19. More smoke? There is little difference in carbon reductions with either policy

The primary practical difference is that the word "tax" is death to politicians; especially conservatives that have been browbeat into signing the "no new taxes" pledge by the wingnuts.

See krugman's chart upthread.

[kristopher]

6. Thank you and Mr. Krugman. nt

[Nederland]

17. A 43 percent reduction is failure?

Voltaire said it more than 200 years ago, and it's still true today: the perfect is the enemy of the good.

[joshcryer]

20. You have to look at it from Hansen's POV, we have to reduce 60% in 20 years to stem 2.0C.

That's his belief, and it is backed up by the science, at the lowest end of IPCC trends.

[Nederland]

21. That is not backed up by science

Unless you think it's unscientific to include little things like margin of error. Read what Gavin Schmidt says about the accuracy of the models:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/comment-page-2/

[kristopher]

22. Actually it is.

I don't dispute the piece you post at all, it is absolutely correct, but that doesn't address the logic that is behind Hansen's call for action. To dispute the science behind that call to action you are going to need to show that 2 degrees of warming is NOT a tipping point that will result in a cascade of UNCONTROLLABLE events.

Hansen is taking the position - backed by solid science - that the tipping point is a line that, if crossed, eliminates our ability to prevent much larger changes.

His use of firm numbers is based on the same type of risk analysis that you offer when defending nuclear power. If there is a significant probability that a risk with extreme associated consequences can be contained, then action should be taken to reduce that risk to the extent that is feasible.

Since we KNOW that there are limits to fossil fuel use in the future that are unrelated to climate change, the cost of addressing climate change is one we will inevitably have to pay to meet energy security needs.

This means that with early action a large risk will have been mitigated by only a slight change in timing of the economic transition.

Given the expected rise in costs of fossil energy due to increased competition for resources, the overall economic argument also favors the transition to green energy. Tie that with a massive shift in the balance of foreign payments and increased employment related to energy consumption, and it is a no brainer for EVERYONE who 1) actually understand the facts and 2) is not heavily invested in fossil fuel related industries. Everyone else stands to gain, they stand to lose. The balance isn't even close.

[Nederland]

23. It is not science

You cannot scientifically prove that 2 degrees of warming is NOT a tipping point.

You cannot scientifically prove that 2 degrees of warming IS a tipping point.

You cannot scientifically prove any of this stuff because all of it only exists in computer models, models that do not remotely agree with each other:



Just look at all those different lines. Look at them.

If we had "consensus" on how to predict climate we would not have 20 different models showing 20 different things!

[kristopher]

24. If it isn't science then neither is the physics behind nuclear power.

We don't need to know precisely WHICH atom will be hit and split to know that the end result will be that enough will be impacted to produce a given result. The same with the modeling on climate. We don't need to know precisely WHICH thread is the one accurately predicting the next 5 years to know that the overall trend is that warming is happening and that the 2 degree threshold is one that shouldn't be crossed.

When those clowns at Chernobyl blew up the containment dome they were seeing how close they could come to the theoretical limits of their system.

You are such a clown and you are arguing that we should play the exact same type of game with our planet.

Glad to see you are finally out of the closet as an out and out denier.

[Nederland]

25. A Simple Question

Are you honestly trying to argue that modeling climate is no more difficult than modeling a nuclear reactor?

[kristopher]

28. We know the outcome and the risk

I'm saying that your demand that to qualify as science the bar is that the precise thread of prediction be isolated is as preposterous as if I demanded that you tell me precisely which atoms are going to be split before I recognize the legitimacy of the theories behind what makes a nuclear reactor function.

You have no basis on which to object that action should be taken to address climate change.

[Nederland]

32. Here is the difference

You can create a computer model that models a nuclear reactor under various conditions. You can then actually go to a real live nuclear reactor, duplicate the conditions, and observe the result. You can then compare the model results to the actual results to verify that the model is correct. You can fix all the variables in the reactor except one, or all except two, or any combination that you want because you have control over the system. You can run these tests over and over and over using countless variations until you have a great deal of confidence that your computer model is correct. You can compare your model to reality.

You cannot do that with a climate model.

You cannot fix solar radiance, methane, clouds and aerosols and play with the level of CO2 and observe the results to verify that the way you are modeling CO2 is correct. You can't run a virtually unlimited set of tests over and over to verify that your model is correct. The only thing you have is the last thirty years of actual climate data. The only thing you can do is plug the actual numbers of those last thirty years into your model and see if your model accurately predicts the observed results. That's it. Want to verify that your model correctly predicts what happens when CO2 hits 450ppm, aerosols decrease, and cloud cover stays constant? Too bad, you can't. Want to verify that your model when CO2 stays where it is but methane concentrations double? Sorry, you're shit out of luck. The only variations you can test are the ones that have already happened--and those aren't the ones you care about.

That is why you can't claim predictions that come out of a computer model are "science". They cannot be verified. They are not falsifiable. At least not until they actually happen.

[joshcryer]

33. The models fit very well the climate, as run *after the fact*, and that is one way to help verify...

...the results.

[Nederland]

34. True but irrelevant

You can one verify one scenario: the one that happened. Climate models include dozens of variables that combined have millions of different combinations. The ability to verify one combination out of millions does not remotely constitute verifiability. Mostly importantly, you cannot verify the one you really want to: the one that predicts what will happen when CO2 rises above current levels.

[kristopher]

37. Right, and we can't predict that a nuclear rchain eaction will occur because we don't know

Right, and we can't predict that a nuclear rchain eaction will occur because we don't know which individual atoms will split and precisely the sequence that the cascade effect will follow. There are simply too many variables to be able to isolate the path from start to finish, so there is no reason to believe that nuclear power or nuclear weapons are real.

What a hoot.

[Nederland]

40. Exactly

Right, and we can't predict that a nuclear chain reaction will occur because we don't know which individual atoms will split and precisely the sequence that the cascade effect will follow. There are simply too many variables to be able to isolate the path from start to finish, so there is no reason to believe that nuclear power or nuclear weapons are real.

Exactly, which is why you build nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors and then test them, not just assume they will work based upon your theories.

Problem is, you can't do that with climate change, unless you have a secret method for building planets that you haven't let us in on.

[kristopher]

42. You CAN do that with climate

it just takes longer for Final confirmation.

You're wrong, chump.

[Nederland]

44. I see

And at what point will you have final confirmation regarding Hansen's assertions of tipping points?

[kristopher]

45. How does that red herring address the application of the science as I asked?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=221199&mesg_id=221611

[joshcryer]

48. We don't have the computing power to run millions of combnations.

Each model goes by each modellers best estimate of the environment. The models are good predictors. No, not perfect, but as generalizations they're excellent.

In the end there are maybe a dozen or two different serious models that have been run.

[Nederland]

49. The models are good predictors?

Which ones? How accurate are they at forecasting global temperature over a ten year period? Please provide evidence that backs up this assertion.

And don't even both linking to this: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm

It evaluates the model ability to hindcast, not forecast.

[joshcryer]

51. Oh, they're not accurate enough at all, they all *all* failed to predict sea ice decline.

This is a relatively recent overview of the models: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf

Here is where they failed sea ice decline: http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/USGS_PolarBear_DeWeaver_GCM-Uncertainty.pdf

The models will never be "complete." So I don't know what your line of questioning is after. They are increasingly good enough to tell us what is going on.

Oh, and we've had this discussion before.

[Nederland]

53. I told you not to bother linking to that report

If you bothered to read it, you'd see that it is an evaluation of the model's ability to hindcast, not forecast.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf

So I ask again, how accurate are they at forecasting global temperature over a ten year period? Please provide evidence that backs up this assertion.

[joshcryer]

54. What part of "recent and past" don't you get?

If that's not good enough for you, I don't know what is. The models aren't going to be able to be perfect, ever. What else do we have? Magic hand waving about how CO2 doesn't cause a greenhouse effect?

[Nederland]

59. Response

I am not claiming the models need to be perfect. Never have, never will. What I am claiming is that they need to be accurate within a certain margin of error. You determine the accuracy of a model by comparing the predicted value to the real value. Looking at how well the models predict the past doesn't count because any idiot can create a model that correctly predicts the past. All you have to do is keep tweaking it until it fits the data. I would suggest the following test:

1) Look up what IPCC models predicted the temperature increase would be over the period 2000-2009.

2) Compare those predicted values to the actual values.

Tell me what you find, then we can have a real debate about whether or not the models are accurate. Agreed?

[joshcryer]

60. I found an interesting blog posting about predictions.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/#more-2108

[joshcryer]

58. Here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

[Nederland]

61. Now we are making progress

Let's look at these graphs. These are the 2001 IPCC models. It seems to me that the actual measured temperatures are within the margin of error, but the margin of error is rather large and getting larger as time goes by (as expected). Would you agree?

[joshcryer]

62. Indeed, and they're extremely off on sea level.

But can't you agree that the models are at least enough to say there is a problem here? One that should be addressed?

[Nederland]

63. Yes, sea level is extremely off

Obviously the model needs more work to accurately predict sea level rises.

Regarding temperature, what is your understanding of the gray bars? Do they represent the ranges of the different IPCC scenarios, or the margin of error. I think they represent the ranges of the different IPCC scenarios. Would you agree?

On edit: I know earlier I said they corresponded to the margin of error, but re-reading the article I think I was wrong.

[joshcryer]

64. Yes, they are ranges of error, but 2.0C is at the lowest end of the range, given our CO2 ouput.

ie, the "most likely" scenario.

[Nederland]

65. Not for IPCC AR3, which is the model we are looking at

For IPCC TAR, the range is 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees over the period 1990 to 2100. (You'll see in a moment that I'm actually doing you a favor by pointing this out).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report

Regardless, if the gray bars represent the variation due to different scenarios, why should they be included? We know what happened to CO2 during that period, it increased by slightly more than expected. Shouldn't we be using the projection for the actual scenario that the period followed, not all the projections?

[joshcryer]

50. Have you ever built a physics model?

Just for fun. The equations are simple, basic high school extended course, or an elementary, entry college level course. I can write a physical model for a bullet (I have in my video game hobby). Now, that model will behave exactly like a bullet, for the purposes of a video game simulation. No one would no the wiser, indeed, the US Army has their own little FPS game where they train young adults to be merciless killers. The video game Americas Army is actually one of the best simulators around.

You could take a thousand bullets in real life, fire them on a shooting range, and they will compare to the video game simulation, in fact, over a long term average they should be identical (randomness is inserted into the bullet trajectory, as in a first person shooter with a gun that isn't stable). And that's where the models come in.

The models themselves are static (as in, the code itself doesn't self-modify, or whatever), there's only one model, though the results are always going to be different, it isn't the model itself that changes, simply the simulation run.

Now, just like with those bullets in the video game, one run is not going to be representative of real life. A thousand runs? A million runs? They average is where the accuracy lies.

And every single model follows the temperature record to the tee, well within any margin of error.

It would take a quantum computer, or a second planet to actually "run our model" in real time, with exact results. Likewise, it would take a quantum computer, or more computing power in the world to render the trajectory of a bullet exactly. Every atom in the bullet, every atom in the air that it passes through, ever atom in the combustibles, every atom in the gun shaft and triggering mechanism.

This is why, when people say 1) the models aren't perfect simulations or 2) they can't predict weather (distinct from climate), I wind up shaking my head. Because you're not going to get that in a million years.

We landed on the moon with 2 kb of RAM, this is less ram than what is in a modern calculator. You don't *need* absolute simulations to be able to achieve accuracy.

[Nederland]

55. Response

Just for fun. The equations are simple, basic high school extended course, or an elementary, entry college level course. I can write a physical model for a bullet (I have in my video game hobby). Now, that model will behave exactly like a bullet, for the purposes of a video game simulation. No one would no the wiser, indeed, the US Army has their own little FPS game where they train young adults to be merciless killers. The video game Americas Army is actually one of the best simulators around.

You could take a thousand bullets in real life, fire them on a shooting range, and they will compare to the video game simulation, in fact, over a long term average they should be identical (randomness is inserted into the bullet trajectory, as in a first person shooter with a gun that isn't stable). And that's where the models come in.

The models themselves are static (as in, the code itself doesn't self-modify, or whatever), there's only one model, though the results are always going to be different, it isn't the model itself that changes, simply the simulation run.

Now, just like with those bullets in the video game, one run is not going to be representative of real life. A thousand runs? A million runs? They average is where the accuracy lies.

All true, all irrelevant. We know ballistic simulations are accurate because we can test them. You can't test simulations of future climate.

And every single model follows the temperature record to the tee, well within any margin of error.

The ability to correctly the past is not impressive. Create a model that accurate predicts the future and I'll be impressed. IPCC models have a poor track record predicting the future.

It would take a quantum computer, or a second planet to actually "run our model" in real time, with exact results. Likewise, it would take a quantum computer, or more computing power in the world to render the trajectory of a bullet exactly. Every atom in the bullet, every atom in the air that it passes through, ever atom in the combustibles, every atom in the gun shaft and triggering mechanism.

This is why, when people say 1) the models aren't perfect simulations or 2) they can't predict weather (distinct from climate), I wind up shaking my head. Because you're not going to get that in a million years.

I'm not asking for something that is perfect. Never have, never will. I'm asking for something that is verifiable and testable, because that is what science demands. Ballistic models are verifiable, climate models are not.

We landed on the moon with 2 kb of RAM, this is less ram than what is in a modern calculator. You don't *need* absolute simulations to be able to achieve accuracy.

We know moon landing simulations were accurate because we actually landed on the moon. We could only say that the simulations were accurate AFTER we actually accomplished the feat. What you are doing is akin to sitting in 1968 and claiming to "know" the moon simulations are accurate. You can't claim a simulation is accurate until you can measure its predictions against reality, and you cannot measure the actual results of something that hasn't happened yet.

Remember how all this discussion started. It started when the claim was made that Hansen's assertions regarding tipping points were backed by solid science. I disputed this claim because science says a theory is only proven when the predicted results match real measurements within a certain margin of error. We can't prove Hansen's theory, because it describes things that haven't happen yet, and if they haven't happened yet, you can't take measurements to verify the accuracy of his theory.

[joshcryer]

57. To test future projections for climate, you just wait.

We waited for TAR: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/recent-climate-observations-compared-to-ipcc-projections/

TAR underestimated.

I'm trying in earnest to find the paper that explains just how good our projections are, but I cannot fucking find it (it is a retrospective on 2001 IPCC compared to now; it uses the same model they used then, with no adjustments, no additions).

Ahah, it's linked right there: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf

[kristopher]

35. At what point did the theories behind nuclear power cross the threshold

So at what point did the theories behind nuclear power cross the threshold from whatever it is that you think climate science is, to "science" as you've tried to define it?

I say "tried to define it" because you are trying to restrict methods of disproving a hypothesis to what can be constructed in a laboratory, and that is simply absurd. That you deny that the ability to make observations about the world which are confirmed by observations of events in the real world is science is not credible. All you are doing is trying to play on an old philosophical discussion that doesn't apply as it the original discussion is designed to distinguish science from metaphysics. Climate predictions are testable, it is just in a longer timeframe than you would like.

That extended time frame doesn't mean that the application of what has already been learned must wait until the planet heats up 12 degrees and we all die. There are myriad components of the process that go into making the overall trend prediction that we can and have tested. There are countless individual hypothesis that are part of the larger whole which have been tested and now form the backbone of a larger whole.

When they prepared to initiate the first sustained fission reaction or explode the first nuclear weapon should they have disregarded the overall body of knowledge behind that final test? Should they have just stood by the device, unprotected in a laboratory in the middle of a city and said "OK let her rip, if we are right we'll take appropriate precautions next time?

Your argument sounds like something a six year old would make up.

[Nederland]

38. You make an excellent point

When they prepared to initiate the first sustained fission reaction or explode the first nuclear weapon should they have disregarded the overall body of knowledge behind that final test? Should they have just stood by the device, unprotected in a laboratory in the middle of a city and said "OK let her rip, if we are right we'll take appropriate precautions next time?

This example completely validates my point. Obviously the answer is no, they did not conduct the test in an unprotected laboratory in the middle of the city. They didn't do that because they did not believe that that it was a good idea to assume that all of their years of research and years of predicting how they thought nuclear fission would behave was how it actually would behave. As a result, they did a test. A test designed to validate that all their theories were correct. They were humble enough to know that they might have made a mistake, even though all they were modeling was how a little sphere of plutonium would behave when imploding.

This is in marked contrast to you, who thinks that people should have complete confidence in something that models an entire planet.

[kristopher]

43. There is as much tested evidence behind climate science as nuclear

The same principles of physics and chemistry are applied to a different problem. The examples of such validated fundamentals are endless and to discard them in the manner you wish would be exactly the same as a bonehead testing a nuke in a city.

There *is* a fundamental difference between the two examples but it clearly eludes you: in the case of fission, not taking action on their hypothesis had little significant negative consequences.

In the case of climate not taking action on the hypothesis has associated negative consequences that we don't want to experience.

The question before is isn't whether climate science is science, it undeniably is and your pretense otherwise is nothing but sophistry. The question we face is how science is applied to the affairs of man.

I noticed that you have now TWICE avoided answering that point. Using fundamental proven strategies for the application of science to our lives yields this:

His use of firm numbers is based on the same type of risk analysis that you offer when defending nuclear power. If there is a significant probability that a risk with extreme associated consequences can be contained, then action should be taken to reduce that risk to the extent that is feasible.

Since we KNOW that there are limits to fossil fuel use in the future that are unrelated to climate change, the cost of addressing climate change is one we will inevitably have to pay to meet energy security needs.

This means that with early action a large risk will have been mitigated by only a slight change in timing of the economic transition.

Given the expected rise in costs of fossil energy due to increased competition for resources, the overall economic argument also favors the transition to green energy. Tie that with a massive shift in the balance of foreign payments and increased employment related to energy consumption, and it is a no brainer for EVERYONE who 1) actually understand the facts and 2) is not heavily invested in fossil fuel related industries.

Everyone but the fossil fuel industries stand to gain, they fossil fuel industry alone stands to lose.

The balance isn't even close.

[Nederland]

46. The question is whether what you claim is science is in fact science

The question before is isn't whether climate science is science, it undeniably is and your pretense otherwise is nothing but sophistry. The question we face is how science is applied to the affairs of man.

I disagree. Our point of contention is that you believe that the predictions of models should be considered science. I disagree because, as I have pointed out numerous times, the predictions of climate models cannot be tested via experiment. Theories that cannot be falsified by experiment are not science. I have completely demolished your pitiful arguments regarding the similarities between climate modeling and modeling nuclear physics, and yet you continue on as if you have won the argument. It is rather pitiful to watch, so I'm going to have mercy on you and make a suggestion.

Rather than comparing climate science to nuclear physics, you should compare it to evolution and ask me if I believe that evolution is science. Evolution shares the same problem as climate science, namely the problem of having a theory that encompasses the whole of life and therefore the difficulty of running experiments. Like climate science, there are questions of falsifiability with evolution. Now many people would have seized upon the similarities and used the example of evolution as a good counterpoint to my assertions. You failed to do this because, quite frankly, you aren't that bright. Perhaps next time you'll remember my suggestion and have better luck.

I'm off to bed. Have a good night.

[kristopher]

47. There is no external support for your position

science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. - NOAA

http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/coris_glossary/index.aspx?letter=s

And
http://ethree.com/downloads/Climate%20Change%20Readings/Climate%20Science/IPCC%20Reports/AR4WG1_FrontMatter-v2.pdf.
Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis
Edited by
Susan Solomon
Dahe Qin
Martin Manning
Co-Chair,
Co-Chair,
Head, Technical Support Unit
IPCC Working Group I
IPCC Working Group I
IPCC Working Group I
Melinda Marquis Kristen Averyt Melinda M.B. Tignor Henry LeRoy Miller, Jr.
Technical Support Unit, IPCC Working Group I
Zhenlin Chen
China Meteorological Administration
Contribution of Working Group I
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
**********************************************

All you are doing is trying to avoid the issue of how we apply science by trying to focus attention on a red herring. You are arguing a self evidently stupid proposition culled from an unrelated philosophical discussion.

Knowing you are being boxed in you take the coward's route and claim to be running off to bed.

That is the 4th time you've run from this point:
If there is a significant probability that a risk with extreme associated consequences can be contained, then action should be taken to reduce that risk to the extent that is feasible.

Since we KNOW that there are limits to fossil fuel use in the future that are unrelated to climate change, the cost of addressing climate change is one we will inevitably have to pay to meet energy security needs.

This means that with early action a large risk will have been mitigated by only a slight change in timing of the economic transition.

Given the expected rise in costs of fossil energy due to increased competition for resources, the overall economic argument also favors the transition to green energy. Tie that with a massive shift in the balance of foreign payments and increased employment related to energy consumption, and it is a no brainer for EVERYONE who 1) actually understand the facts and 2) is not heavily invested in fossil fuel related industries.

Everyone but the fossil fuel industries stand to gain, they fossil fuel industry alone stands to lose.

The balance isn't even close.

[Nederland]

52. I have no interest in debating Peak Oil right now

We are debating the truth of your statement that Hansen's assertions regarding tipping points are back by solid science. You made the claim in post #22. If you are willing to concede that you were wrong on that point, I'll be happy to to discuss something else.

[joshcryer]

56. Hansen's knows that doubling = 2C guaranteed.

Hansen takes the 2.0C number from thin air, just like everyone else, because some economists in the past thought it would be possible to stop there. This of course is not likely to happen, of course, without some kind of crazy governmental intervention, and *that* is where Hansen's perspective lies. He's a worried old codger, to his fault.

Some here might say he worries too much, but I like the guy because his tiny little model that ran on 1980 computers; computers might I add that were less powerful than the one you are typing on most likely; his model was correct, he predicted warming would be seperate from noise by the mid 90s and he was dead on correct! If you consider the simplicity of the model and the computing power he had, and the fact that he predicted something that actually occurred.

[kristopher]

67. It has absolutely nothing to do with Peak Oil, that's another red herring

This is my full post #22 after you claim that Hansen's policy proposals are not "based on science"

I wrote:
"Actually it is.

I don't dispute the piece you post at all, it is absolutely correct, but that doesn't address the logic that is behind Hansen's call for action. To dispute the science behind that call to action you are going to need to show that 2 degrees of warming is NOT a tipping point that will result in a cascade of UNCONTROLLABLE events.

Hansen is taking the position - backed by solid science - that the tipping point is a line that, if crossed, eliminates our ability to prevent much larger changes.

His use of firm numbers is based on the same type of risk analysis that you offer when defending nuclear power. If there is a significant probability that a risk with extreme associated consequences can be contained, then action should be taken to reduce that risk to the extent that is feasible.

Since we KNOW that there are limits to fossil fuel use in the future that are unrelated to climate change, the cost of addressing climate change is one we will inevitably have to pay to meet energy security needs.

This means that with early action a large risk will have been mitigated by only a slight change in timing of the economic transition.

Given the expected rise in costs of fossil energy due to increased competition for resources, the overall economic argument also favors the transition to green energy. Tie that with a massive shift in the balance of foreign payments and increased employment related to energy consumption, and it is a no brainer for EVERYONE who 1) actually understand the facts and 2) is not heavily invested in fossil fuel related industries. Everyone else stands to gain, they stand to lose. The balance isn't even close."


You are attempting to claim that any degree of remaining uncertainty means that a given piece of research "isn't science".

All science has uncertainty; but that is the fundamental premise of science. We have the best information we can obtain for now - tomorrow could always change our understanding.

You say that observations of the past are not a valid predictor of the future - that too is sophistry and you know it. Your standard argument when arguing for the safety of nuclear power is that past performance (lack of a large scale accident resulting in high mortality) is the ONLY way we should judge the safety of plants for purposes of public policy.

I say that your attempt to inflate the significance of scientific uncertainty as it relates to public policy is your method of laying a false trail for people to follow - you want them to think that because you've started a debate on the issue by taking a position that is stupid on it's face, you've demonstrated that there is "debate". A demonstration that attempts to hide the difference between legitimate public policy debate about science and the type of debate that occurs between a recalcitrant 6 year old and an adult correcting the tyke.

You've refused to engage 5 times on this point. This is a discussion about risk and public policy - the risk is established by the standard application of the scientific method to understanding the problem.

To determine public policy it is necessary to evaluate the degree of certainty of costs against the degree of certainty of harm

Your attempt to exclude discussion about the the price of continuing dependence on fossil fuels from a discussion of the costs and benefits of taking action on energy policy related to climate change is an attempt to illegitimately stack the deck against action.

It would be artificially inflating the costs of action by assigning those costs totally to climate change when the fact is that the costs associated with taking action are an inevitable cost of dealing with the issues of:
energy security,
economic stability,
jobs and
other nonGHG environmental externalities.

This means that those costs are directly offset by benefits in all of those areas.

[Nihil]

36. I think you've acccidentally hit a very good analogy ...

> You can create a computer model that models a nuclear reactor under various conditions.
> You can then actually go to a real live nuclear reactor, duplicate the conditions, and
> observe the result. You can then compare the model results to the actual results to
> verify that the model is correct.

The snag is that in the case of the ultimate no-no (Chernobyl), people looked at the model
and said "I bet it doesn't do that ... the model is wrong."

We all know the result from that particular piece of hubris.

Unfortunately, there are far too many people around at the moment who want to do
almost exactly the same thing with the climate of this planet: they want to push
it beyond the "modelled" limits and "prove" that the model is wrong ...

Now I'm an advocate of nuclear power in appropriate situations but no way do I support
the stupidity of the Chernobyl operators. Similarly, I hear what people say about the
margin of error in the current climate change scenarios but no way do I want to see
"us" pushing the limits in the vain hope that the models were wrong.

There *are* some people who strongly believe that their actions will not affect them
nor their profits. They are the people who are against any caution with regard to
climate impacts. They are exactly the ones who originate the meme that "you can't claim
predictions that come out of a computer model are 'science'".

[Nederland]

41. That's not what happened

The snag is that in the case of the ultimate no-no (Chernobyl), people looked at the model and said "I bet it doesn't do that ... the model is wrong."

That is not remotely what happened at Chernobyl. No one ever said: "I bet it doesn't do that...the model is wrong."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

[kristopher]

26. Noticed that you failed to address the economic arguement for preventive action

I don't dispute the piece you post at all, it is absolutely correct, but that doesn't address the logic that is behind Hansen's call for action. To dispute the science behind that call to action you are going to need to show that 2 degrees of warming is NOT a tipping point that will result in a cascade of UNCONTROLLABLE events.

Hansen is taking the position - backed by solid science - that the tipping point is a line that, if crossed, eliminates our ability to prevent much larger changes.

His use of firm numbers is based on the same type of risk analysis that you offer when defending nuclear power. If there is a significant probability that a risk with extreme associated consequences can be contained, then action should be taken to reduce that risk to the extent that is feasible.

Since we KNOW that there are limits to fossil fuel use in the future that are unrelated to climate change, the cost of addressing climate change is one we will inevitably have to pay to meet energy security needs.

This means that with early action a large risk will have been mitigated by only a slight change in timing of the economic transition.

Given the expected rise in costs of fossil energy due to increased competition for resources, the overall economic argument also favors the transition to green energy. Tie that with a massive shift in the balance of foreign payments and increased employment related to energy consumption, and it is a no brainer for EVERYONE who 1) actually understand the facts and 2) is not heavily invested in fossil fuel related industries. Everyone else stands to gain, they stand to lose. The balance isn't even close.

[joshcryer]

27. Sure, 2.0C is an arbitrary goalpost. We shouldn't even be above 280 ppm if we want a world that...

...is similar to the one our great grandparents grew up in.

Hansen has stated in the past, and every climatologist I know of, is of the position that 2.0C is just a point where we should strive for, not a magical tipping point. As David Archer says in his very good lecture series, "2.0C is just a number, we could be at 1.9, or we could be at 2.1, it doesn't matter, the key is that we are changing the environment dramatically." His lectures were made before we got Antarctic or Greenland numbers. It's obvious that even the "small" warming we have caused so far is having enormous impacts as it is.

edit: the David Archer quote is of course paraphrased, I don't have the video anymore, it's in his closing thoughts lecture.

[kristopher]

29. It isn't arbitrary.

It is a best estimate.

There is a huge difference and it is real.

[joshcryer]

30. 2.0C is not a best estimate, you will not find it in any litratature, it is what G8, MEF, COP15...

...picked as something that was achievable.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/10/field-notes-from-a-nature-conservancy-meeting/

[joshcryer]

31. Just so we're clear here, we may have already passed a tipping point.

Hansen picks 2.0C because it is already in the minds of individuals, but if you read his underlying language he doesn't even think 1.5C is good, and thinks we should reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to per-industrial before he can sleep soundly.