It really is hot out there (i.e. global climate change)

[donheff]

Thanks for that link. While I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure, that sure impresses me as being informative and unbiased, and I do think I have a very sensitive BS detector.

Yes, he impressed me too. I agree that both extremes of the GCC debate are problematic. I occasionally cite the drumbeat of studies piling up and up in support of GCC because it irritates the heck out of me that a lot of people seem to me to be science (reality) deniers for political reasons (and in other cases, like evolution, for religious reasons). But beating my drum often makes it appear that I am in the "sky is falling, stop drilling now" crowd when I am really a tech fan-boy and believe we can invent our way out of the problem by the end of the century. From a policy perspective I am at a bit of a loss, however. I worry that the deniers will stifle funding that will support R&D that can help us avoid the worst of GCC impacts. On the other hand, the sky is falling crowd can push some extreme restrictions. I lean a bit in that direction despite the fact that I don't agree with the motivation since it often pushes in the direction of speeding up alternative energy developments that could more quickly lead to energy independence which is a national security imperative. But I recognize that the same emphasis can potentially slow sensible efforts concerning fossil fuels and nuclear. I guess I am in the schizophrenic pro-green, pro-nuke, pro-GMO, pro-stem-cell... lobby).

 

[rgarling]

Yes, he impressed me too. I agree that both extremes of the GCC debate are problematic. I occasionally cite the drumbeat of studies piling up and up in support of GCC because it irritates the heck out of me that a lot of people seem to me to be science (reality) deniers for political reasons ...

for technology lovers, here is the best temperature data available: Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

At this point, the "science" is unknowable (and therefore the reality), but you wouldn't know that by reading the material from the IPCC and the paleo-climate blogs. This field is more political science than physical science.

Also, whether or not man-made global warming is a factor, it doesn't preclude searching for alternative energy sources. There are several promising energy storage and energy generation techniques in the pipeline.

 

[Zathras]

for technology lovers, here is the best temperature data available: Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

At this point, the "science" is unknowable (and therefore the reality), but you wouldn't know that by reading the material from the IPCC and the paleo-climate blogs. This field is more political science than physical science.

Also, whether or not man-made global warming is a factor, it doesn't preclude searching for alternative energy sources. There are several promising energy storage and energy generation techniques in the pipeline.

I am not sure why you would call a single source, the "best".
For those interested in a discussion on that lower atmosphere data :
UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 - Overconfidence

As for the science being 'unknowable', that is a very odd statement.
People use the scientific method to try to explain the universe around us. It continually seeks to test theories which either strengthens them, points out areas for improvement, or replaces them.

97% of climatologists agree on the fundamentals of climate change. That is mor agreement than you will get in many disciplines
Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

 

[Zathras]

...I occasionally cite the drumbeat of studies piling up and up in support of GCC because it irritates the heck out of me that a lot of people seem to me to be science (reality) deniers for political reasons (and in other cases, like evolution, for religious reasons). But beating my drum often makes it appear that I am in the "sky is falling, stop drilling now" crowd when I am really a tech fan-boy and believe we can invent our way out of the problem by the end of the century. From a policy perspective I am at a bit of a loss, however. I worry that the deniers will stifle funding that will support R&D that can help us avoid the worst of GCC impacts. On the other hand, the sky is falling crowd can push some extreme restrictions...

+1!
I lean a little bit more on the urgency side as I feel, like most problems, it will cost more the longer we wait.

 

[ERD50]

+1!
I lean a little bit more on the urgency side as I feel, like most problems, it will cost more the longer we wait.

But the 'solution' often comes from unpredictable and unrelated sources.

Whales were saved from extinction by the discovery of petroleum oil which could be pumped right out of the ground! No hunting, and only minimal processing required.

Horses, dead on the street and their manure was a major problem facing cities in the early 1900's. No one envisioned the automobile would make the horse obsolete in a few decades (and work horses were almost driven to extinction by lack of demand - the opposite of whales!).

I don't think anything could have sped up the discovery/commercialization of oil or autos. Like many technologies, their development coincides with other events. It probably would have caused all sorts of pain and economic problems to just stop using whale oil, or stop using horses, before these other solutions appeared.

Are you ready to stop using petrol and electricity from the grid? Maybe you could do it with your EV and enough solar panels, but very few people could afford that.

I just skimmed your link, but I'm not sure a 'consensus' means all that much if it is being measured by the number of articles published one way or the other. It could be researchers chasing grant money? There was only one guy publishing papers that attributed stomach ulcers to bacteria, he was ridiculed by the vast majority, and he turned out to be right.

I'm not a 'denier' myself, but I do think the whole issue is very complex, and we shouldn't assume we know too much. I do think there is a lot we do not understand.

-ERD50

 

[FinanceDude]

Thanks for that link. While I'm not knowledgeable enough to know for sure, that sure impresses me as being informative and unbiased, and I do think I have a very sensitive BS detector.


I see that donheff clarified that he isn't associating this recent weather with climate change, that it just got him thinking about. It had the same effect on me, running my AC more this year than probably the past 5 years combined, and it isn't even August yet - but then again, last year was exceptionally cool here. So it does draw your attention to it.

-ERD50

I guess there was bad global warming in 1988 too, because thst summer was much like this one for the whole US. One big drought every 24 years and that's global warming? I don't think so..........

 

[M Paquette]

"They can't help it..it's in their blood
..they say that they're working for us?

..But what they really want is to rule the world!"

- Angry Villager in Young Frankenstein, commenting on scientists

 

[donheff]

But the 'solution' often comes from unpredictable and unrelated sources.

I agree and I believe it is almost a certainty that some radical technologies will emerge in the coming decades in both the energy and carbon cleaning arenas.

Are you ready to stop using petrol and electricity from the grid? Maybe you could do it with your EV and enough solar panels, but very few people could afford that.

Not me. But I am willing to spend some of our [-]your[/-] money subsidizing alternative energy to spur development in wind, solar, etc., to speed up their trip down the cost curve, and some grants for SO2 studies and other R&D efforts.

 

[MichaelB]

Energy is almost 10% of US GDP. Do we need to subsidize research in a segment where there is already so much opportunity for gain?

 

[rgarling]

I am not sure why you would call a single source, the "best".
For those interested in a discussion on that lower atmosphere data :
UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 - Overconfidence

As for the science being 'unknowable', that is a very odd statement.
People use the scientific method to try to explain the universe around us. It continually seeks to test theories which either strengthens them, points out areas for improvement, or replaces them...

97% of climatologists agree on the fundamentals of climate change. That is mor agreement than you will get in many disciplines
...

When you are taking the temperature of the earth, a data source that takes millions of accurate data points from all areas of the globe is good. It turns out there is no better system in place at this time. Interpreting that data is another matter. Unfortunately, your referenced article is a political hack piece.

Yes science being 'unknowable' is an odd statement. Science is what it is. You either can demonstrate something or not. The genesis of the statement is from the referenced post where "science" was equivalenced with "reality". Since we don't have the science to describe what is going on, we don't know the reality. I was trying to use the posters terminology, and it got a little fuzzy.

concerning 97% of (paleo)climatologists agree... Perhaps, but it *is* a fairly small group. Even if it wasn't, agreeing about something doesn't make it right. Science is not a democracy.

 

[ERD50]

I agree and I believe it is almost a certainty that some radical technologies will emerge in the coming decades in both the energy and carbon cleaning arenas.
Not me. But I am willing to spend some of our [-]your[/-] money subsidizing alternative energy to spur development in wind, solar, etc., to speed up their trip down the cost curve, and some grants for SO2 studies and other R&D efforts.

I might see the need for subsidizing basic research, but as MichaelB points out below, there should be plenty of private money chasing the more near term ideas. I think better results come from entrepreneurs spending their own money, than from any group who is spending someone else's money. I don't want them picking winners/losers, let the market decide.

What if those in power in the big cities in early 1900's decided we should throw a bunch of money at redesigning cities to deal with horses - that might have pulled money away from automobile development? There are consequences to everything. Or if we had invested money into whale breeding programs, or whale farms? Would that have 'solved' the problem, or just stymied progress in other areas?

Energy is almost 10% of US GDP. Do we need to subsidize research in a segment where there is already so much opportunity for gain?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

(...spend) money subsidizing alternative energy to spur development in wind, solar, etc., to speed up their trip down the cost curve, ...

A little more on this statement... I've said it before, but I don't think subsidies speed up development or the cost curve at all. In fact, I think they do the opposite.

A subsidy is put in place to make a product that can't compete in the market 'artificially' attractive. So if a company can sell a sub-optimal product at a profit, their incentive to improve that product has been reduced. You are essentially subsidizing inefficiency. No Thanks.

Look at recent tech successes, they didn't become a better value because they got popular - they got popular because they became a better value. At one time, solar panels could only make sense for very specialized applications like space and military. Offering them to the average person with a subsidy to make them 'affordable' would not have changed that. Technology progresses at a certain pace, many things need to come together to lower the price of solar PV. As tech progressed, solar made sense for a few more niche areas, and that kept moving in steps. The other thing subsidies do is effectively shut the market to what might be better alternatives, another stifling effect.

When you are taking the temperature of the earth, a data source that takes millions of accurate data points from all areas of the globe is good. It turns out there is no better system in place at this time. ...

Even that isn't simple. What temperature is important? Surface temp? Atmosphere? Ocean, land? What about deep ocean?

I know from personal experience that the water temp at the beach of Lake Michigan can be more of a function of recent wind and currents than the temperature over the past month. Certain conditions bring up the cold bottom water, other conditions keep the top warm water stratified. Air/land temperature could be negatively correlated at times.

-ERD50

 

[MichaelB]

Subsidies are also to encourage efforts that might not otherwise take place and are in the public good. For example, developing vaccines. There is no doubt that improvements in energy efficiency and development of alternate sources meet this criteria. It's just not clear a subsidy is needed to make that happen. As ERD points out, it also changes the dynamics of the marketplace without assuring the impact is always positive.

 

[Hamlet]

There isn't going to be much private money spent on low carbon/anti-warming technology without government involvement because of the tragedy of the commons issues you mention.

The market's solution to global warming is to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as fast as possible.

If the government doesn't create a financial downside for using CO2, there is not going to be a lot of interest in counteracting technologies, because there is not going to be any financial upside to using them.

I might see the need for subsidizing basic research, but as MichaelB points out below, there should be plenty of private money chasing the more near term ideas. I think better results come from entrepreneurs spending their own money, than from any group who is spending someone else's money. I don't want them picking winners/losers, let the market decide.
-ERD50

 

[unclemick]

On a personal note - I like the part where I moved to high ground after Katrina - and higher than Missouri where the levees broke.

Got my 'new' more energy efficient A/C set on 75 and my bills seem to be much cheaper than the old one I replaced.

heh heh heh -

 

[Hamlet]

I'm a little leery up putting a large quantity of sulfuric acid into our atmosphere. They hope that if you put it up that high you won't get a lot of acid rain, but there is that potential.

So maybe this SO2 technology is what we should watch, and maybe invest in? Also, the SO2 technology is controllable - need more, add more; got enough, you can slow it down.

-ERD50

 

[NYEXPAT]

I read articles about La Nina and El Nino effects but am too uninformed to know what to think.

La Nina ended back in April, So we are not in anything at the moment. Here in Peru (where the patterns originate) we are anticipating an El Nino to begin in September or October, You could probably look up the year of the last big one (1990'S) and see what the effects were on your region.

One positive effect of climate change is here on the Pacific coast where Winters have grey skies (but no rain) we have had sunshine and 70 degree weather at least 80% of the time.

 

[donheff]

A little more on this statement... I've said it before, but I don't think subsidies speed up development or the cost curve at all. In fact, I think they do the opposite.

A subsidy is put in place to make a product that can't compete in the market 'artificially' attractive. So if a company can sell a sub-optimal product at a profit, their incentive to improve that product has been reduced. You are essentially subsidizing inefficiency. No Thanks.

As you say, subsidies make a field that is not yet commercially viable attractive to entrepreneurs. They jump in the fray and start working their magic. Solar panels only made sense for the last couple of decades because of energy credits. But they are now cheap enough that they are commercially viable or will be in short order. That happened sooner with subsidies than it would have without. There are certainly arguments as to whether that was a good thing -- maybe not. But the subsidies certainly sped up the development. It doesn't make sense to subsidize things for which we don't see a need for a push (e.g. flat screen technology) but in areas we think we need help in the jury is out. If we had subsidized research on how to deal with horse poop we might have wasted a lot of money or we might have jump started better waste treatment. [mod edit].

 

[MichaelB]

This is an interesting discussion, hopefully it stays on track.

 

[donheff]

This is an interesting discussion, hopefully it stays on track.

Sorry, had to toss that bon mot in.

 

[REWahoo]

Sorry, had to toss that bon mot in.

-1

 

[ERD50]

As you say, subsidies make a field that is not yet commercially viable attractive to entrepreneurs.

That's not what I said, but there may be some truth to it. Whether that is good in the long run or not is debatable - as we said, this might set the entrepreneurs off and working on the wrong path, ignoring better paths that aren't subsidized. That could very well be a negative overall for the consumer.

my bold:

They jump in the fray and start working their magic. Solar panels only made sense for the last couple of decades because of energy credits. But they are now cheap enough that they are commercially viable or will be in short order. That happened sooner with subsidies than it would have without.

Evidence for the bolded statement? OK, evidence may be hard to come by, but a reasonable explanation as to how this would be the case? Consider all the successful products that were not subsidized.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

I don't know if global warming is man-made or not. But if I were to build a new house, and if I had a lot that's suitable for optimal solar orientation, my house would look like this.

It looks like a smaller house of perhaps 1,200 sq.ft., which is just right for empty-nester geezers. It has 7x8=56 solar panels, which would have a theoretical production of more than 10KW peak, if they are of the high-efficiency monocrystalline type. That is enough to run an AC, and still have spare power to surf Web, play Paco de Lucia music, keep the beer and the prosciutto cold in the fridge, etc... All the things that a retiree's heart cares for.

 

[samclem]

As you say, subsidies make a field that is not yet commercially viable attractive to entrepreneurs. They jump in the fray and start working their magic.

But why the pinpoint focus on solar (in this case)? We shouldn't get down to that level. If we have a failure of the market to provide the "proper" incentives to achieve the desired result (e.g. reduced greenhouse gases, etc), then just tax the thing we want less of (greenhouse gases) or subsidize the thing we want more of (e.g. home ownership--uggh). Let the market (i.e. us) determine the lowest-cost way to get there. We should realize that any deliberate thumb on this scale to incentivize/disincentivize particular behavior is going to increase the cost of things and put us at a competitive disadvantage overall (since, in a properly working market, goods and services are already being produced in the way that minimizes costs).

[mod edit]

 

[FIREd]

The inability of members to refrain from political/ideological comments has resulted in the closing of this thread.

Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube