Hey, the one intelligent response I've seen in this whole thread (ignoring your last paragraph- it's a flippin 6 year regional trend- interesting, perhaps indicative of solar forcing (which is already accounted for), but not exactly a smoking gun that climate change science is wrong).
I would argue this: the warming mechanism is known and well established, and current trends support a decent amount of sensitivity to CO2. The negative feedbacks are speculative. Therefore, at this time, the null hypothesis should be that we are having and will have a discernible impact.
The level of uncertainty should inform what we as a society do. The thing is, there are a ton of things we can get going on that are no regrets (they save money) or low regrets (they don't cost much and have other non-monetary benefits). Can't we at least agree to get started on those? Here's a reasonable place to start.
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.
If a volcano like that were to blow, we won't be worrying about global warming any more. We wouldn't be worrying about anything.
The central (clearly implied) point of the original post was that anthropogenic carbon fluxes are much smaller than volcanic ones. This is a flaming pile of crap.
"Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."
That doesn't acknowledge natural variability how?
How about:
"The Working Group I Fourth Assessment concluded that most of the observed increase in the globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Note the word most. I think we can agree that the IPCC report is the current authoritative word on the subject of climate change, for better or worse (I'm not saying that it's right, just that it's primary reference). The IPCC does not claim that we are the sole cause of global warming.
And that informs us about our planet's sensitivity to GHG forcing how?
It's funny that climate change skeptics used to try to pick apart the global surface temperature record, which involves data collected from hundreds of locations for over 100 years, but are so quick to grab onto a 6 year regional trend on Mars as proof of something.
Can you show me the climatic feedback that minimizes the impact of the well-understood thermal forcing of CO2 (and methane, etc.) and the well-understood increase in atmospheric CO2 (and methane, etc.)?
Over the past 20 years, however, the number of sunspots has remained roughly constant, yet the average temperature of the Earth has continued to increase. This is put down to a human-produced greenhouse effect caused by the combustion of fossil fuels. This latest analysis shows that the Sun has had a considerable indirect influence on the global climate in the past, causing the Earth to warm or chill, and that mankind is amplifying the Sun's latest attempt to warm the Earth.
That very well may be true. But why is it entirely unreliable? Do you have any basis for this claim? And if the data is skewed one way or another, are the trends valid directionally, or is it all just white noise?
This chart on browser trend is interesting too. IE's market share is slipping like the Big-3 autos. Slow and steady.
I can't wait until IE dips under 50%. That should drive off the last of the 'IE only' websites, which seem to be decreasing in number (of course, I support one at work, though for a limited corporate audience- gack! I am lobbying heavily with the vendor to support Firefox!!).
But I hope Firefox doesn't get too dominant (fortunately, it won't). Competition and the adherence to open standards (at least for more mature technologies) are good things.
The criticism about sales vs. avg. machine lifetime is valid.
In the auto industry we look at UIOs- "units in operation" - that is available via state vehicle registration records. On the whole, the data is pretty good.
Of course, we don't need to register our computers (yet), so we don't have that option.
Assuming the data isn't crap, I noticed that Apple has been gaining market share at an average of 0.34% a month since last September, until the 0.3% dip this past month. They went from 4.3% to 6.4% pretty quick, and it's notable b/c that's switching vendors (unlike Vista, which is mostly same vendor, different product). What will be interesting is the next couple of months- was this just a blip? What happens when Leopard comes out?
I'd put my money on 'blip'. I hereby forecast continued growth for Apple, though maybe averaging 0.1-0.2% per month unless they come out with some kickass hardware soon.
Now, this might still be a good deal for the utility; solar tends to crank out the most juice around the times of maximum loads (hot summer days, driven largely by A/C), when energy tends to be the most expensive.
Mod parent up. And don't overlook Mascoma, another cellulosic biomass company. I had one of the founders as a professor in the early '90's. He's been researching cellulosic conversion for 15+ years...
That struck me as odd, too. A joke? I always thought Brazil was on the map for the Amazon, Carnaval, and fine women (see: Carnaval). I suppose you can also add ethanol and insane gang and prison violence.
Would someone please explain this logic to me? I mean, I understand the logic (If I pay Sally for a hummer, she might use the money to pay off her Hummer), but I just don't think it is valid. Sure, if you plot energy use vs GNP on a log-log chart (like at GapMinder, there's a relationship between CO2 emissions (a proxy for energy use, indexed for relative environmental impact) per capita and income per capita, but there's a lot of scatter and a lot of trends that don't conform.
Here's a couple data points to mull: China went from 1.2 tons CO2 per capita and $595 in 1975 to 2.7 and $4568 in 2002. So income rose 8x while emissions rose a little over 2x. Meanwhile, the US went from $19831 income per head to 34567 from 1975 to 2002, yet emissions per head stayed basically constant (looking at energy use rather than CO2 emissions yields a ~5% increase per energy use capita in the US, 1975 to 2000, much less than the income growth).
So: I am of the impression that while wealth is correlated with energy use, it is not so tightly coupled that you can definitively declare "Every cent you spend is in turn spent on power." Whether or not that statement is right or wrong has rather large implications; I'd like to figure this out. I think it is wrong, or at least greatly oversimplified.
3) To clarify- in the original post, I was referring to various supply-side claims that cutting taxes does not really reduce govt revenue. Yes, these arguments are rather specious, but they are out there. My example was that if you cut my taxes in half, my income (AGI, actually), would have to nearly double (not quite due to variable tax rates, etc.). But my general point was that I really don't think we're anywhere near to the right side of the Laffer Curve. So, to close 2-4, yes, I agree with the general concept, but I don't think the curve is nice and smooth, and I don't think we are even close to the right hand side. And I will continue to mock those who push tax cuts with unrealistic claims about the budgetary impacts. But this is all only tangentially related to the central argument: is energy conservation self-defeating?
1) Got it. But your description is of course oversimplified. What of electricity, where much of the price is due to fixed costs (fuel costs are a sizable fraction, but a fraction nonetheless)? I supplicate myself at your feet again, but I think the net effect is that the elasticity will cause others to increase their usage by less than I decrease mine. Oil is a different matter, I don't quite buy the 1-for-1 substitution argument. References? 5) I don't live and breathe the paradox, but I know how it's supposed to work. 7) Does this not assume comparable energy intensity per dollar for various economic activities? In my case, the extra savings go toward mortgage interest or savings for my kids' college education. Sure, the banks take my money and use it for other things, but so did my utility. What if I apply my savings toward a PV array (which does have a positive energy balance, thanks)? I would submit that energy conservation results in a larger amount of energy saved per dollar than would be marginally produced in most cases by re-allocating those savings.
So: let's table the tax revenue elasticity issue (to conclude, yes, the Laffer curve is a reasonable description of the dynamics, but I don't think it's smooth and I think we are still on the left). As for conservation, I argue that there is not a 1:1 effect on one's energy savings causing increased energy use. Generally 1:1 as direct energy consumption is particularly energy intensive relative to other activities. As for the global market, I argue that there also is not a 1:1 correspondence between energy saved here vs. increased energy there. Fixed costs are one reason.
So: I maintain that energy conservation is not self-defeating in terms of aggregate energy use (really, associated environmental impact- I have nothing against energy use per se, at least until direct thermal impacts become significant, which is a long way away).
I agree with your sentiment about "the futility of trying to micromanage into energy use reductions", but not that energy conservation per se is self-defeating. I would contend that energy conservation is not a sufficient means to achieving a sustainable energy pattern (never did), but it is a constructive component.
The Jevons paradox is interesting and certainly relevant in some contexts. I'd certainly be interested in any references you have viz a viz energy conservation (esp. empirical studies).
1) Explain the original argument on fungibility here. I've don't follow. Yes, I know what the Laffer Curve is. 2) I'm not. Are you? In the US? I'm at the 33% marginal rate, and adding in every other state, local, etc. tax does not get me to 2/3. Neither on a marginal or average (total tax paid / total income) basis. 2a) But it will not cause my gross income to double, to maintain the same (or even close) level of taxes/govt revenue. I suppose I am supposed to go start a new business b/c of the increased incentive of better marginal return due to lower taxes or something. 3) I know. It was a simplification (I assumed a model where the goal was to maintain tax revenue per person-a simplification, I know) 4) Agreed. People do differ greatly on where that threshold is. 5) I supplicate myself at your feet, knowing that you've never made a similar error. I stand corrected. 6) Yes, but they key issue is that people use the paradox to argue that the concept of energy conservation, in general, is self-defeating. That argument is generally false. 7) I would argue that in most contexts, lighting usage is dictated primarily by need, modified only slightly by costs. If I reduce my lighting energy use by 3x by installing CFLs (as I have), it is highly, highly unlikely that I will somehow use anywhere near 3x more lighting. *Maybe* 1.1x, because I'm a little more careless about turning lights off now. *Maybe* 1.5x for the average Joe. In the specific case of CFL substitution, no, it is not equally likely.
I'm not sure I can justify holding your hand for much more.
Your needless condescension is duly noted. Cheers.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, the one intelligent response I've seen in this whole thread (ignoring your last paragraph- it's a flippin 6 year regional trend- interesting, perhaps indicative of solar forcing (which is already accounted for), but not exactly a smoking gun that climate change science is wrong).
I would argue this: the warming mechanism is known and well established, and current trends support a decent amount of sensitivity to CO2. The negative feedbacks are speculative. Therefore, at this time, the null hypothesis should be that we are having and will have a discernible impact.
The level of uncertainty should inform what we as a society do. The thing is, there are a ton of things we can get going on that are no regrets (they save money) or low regrets (they don't cost much and have other non-monetary benefits). Can't we at least agree to get started on those? Here's a reasonable place to start.
The great Global Warming Swindle Swindle
Oh do come on. The realclimate article punches holes a mile wide in the Swindle stuff. Can you invalidate the Realclimate arguments?
The Swindle thing isn't just biased. It is wrong, and easily shown to be so. That's different.
Realclimate has an angle, but they back up their opinion with, you know, real research.
Did you read Carl Wunsch's letter? Like how me mentions,
If a volcano like that were to blow, we won't be worrying about global warming any more. We wouldn't be worrying about anything.
The central (clearly implied) point of the original post was that anthropogenic carbon fluxes are much smaller than volcanic ones. This is a flaming pile of crap.
On the other hand, that show is full of shit.
Debunk this (sorry- PDF) and then we can discuss whether or not the debate about whether humans have a discernible impact on climate should be over.
From the flippin' IPCC summary (warning: PDF):
"Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability
or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate
Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human
activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time periods."
That doesn't acknowledge natural variability how?
How about:
"The Working Group I Fourth Assessment concluded that most of the observed increase in the
globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase
in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Note the word most. I think we can agree that the IPCC report is the current authoritative word on the subject of climate change, for better or worse (I'm not saying that it's right, just that it's primary reference). The IPCC does not claim that we are the sole cause of global warming.
This is so bad it's not even wrong. Please find a talking point that isn't so utterly ridiculous.
If you are going to get all snotty, please, please, check your facts. From the link above:
"Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year."
I am really embarrassed for you.
And that informs us about our planet's sensitivity to GHG forcing how?
It's funny that climate change skeptics used to try to pick apart the global surface temperature record, which involves data collected from hundreds of locations for over 100 years, but are so quick to grab onto a 6 year regional trend on Mars as proof of something.
Can you show me the climatic feedback that minimizes the impact of the well-understood thermal forcing of CO2 (and methane, etc.) and the well-understood increase in atmospheric CO2 (and methane, etc.)?
Then we can talk.
Here's some more pre-troll reading.
That very well may be true. But why is it entirely unreliable? Do you have any basis for this claim? And if the data is skewed one way or another, are the trends valid directionally, or is it all just white noise?
This chart on browser trend is interesting too. IE's market share is slipping like the Big-3 autos. Slow and steady.
I can't wait until IE dips under 50%. That should drive off the last of the 'IE only' websites, which seem to be decreasing in number (of course, I support one at work, though for a limited corporate audience- gack! I am lobbying heavily with the vendor to support Firefox!!).
But I hope Firefox doesn't get too dominant (fortunately, it won't). Competition and the adherence to open standards (at least for more mature technologies) are good things.
The criticism about sales vs. avg. machine lifetime is valid.
In the auto industry we look at UIOs- "units in operation" - that is available via state vehicle registration records. On the whole, the data is pretty good.
Of course, we don't need to register our computers (yet), so we don't have that option.
Assuming the data isn't crap, I noticed that Apple has been gaining market share at an average of 0.34% a month since last September, until the 0.3% dip this past month. They went from 4.3% to 6.4% pretty quick, and it's notable b/c that's switching vendors (unlike Vista, which is mostly same vendor, different product). What will be interesting is the next couple of months- was this just a blip? What happens when Leopard comes out?
I'd put my money on 'blip'. I hereby forecast continued growth for Apple, though maybe averaging 0.1-0.2% per month unless they come out with some kickass hardware soon.
And no, I'm not a fanboy.
Net metering varies by state, but in general you get paid the retail rate or similar for what you sell back to the utility.
Here's some more state by state info
Now, this might still be a good deal for the utility; solar tends to crank out the most juice around the times of maximum loads (hot summer days, driven largely by A/C), when energy tends to be the most expensive.
Mod parent up. And don't overlook Mascoma, another cellulosic biomass company. I had one of the founders as a professor in the early '90's. He's been researching cellulosic conversion for 15+ years...
That struck me as odd, too. A joke? I always thought Brazil was on the map for the Amazon, Carnaval, and fine women (see: Carnaval). I suppose you can also add ethanol and insane gang and prison violence.
Every cent you spend is in turn spent on power
Would someone please explain this logic to me? I mean, I understand the logic (If I pay Sally for a hummer, she might use the money to pay off her Hummer), but I just don't think it is valid. Sure, if you plot energy use vs GNP on a log-log chart (like at GapMinder, there's a relationship between CO2 emissions (a proxy for energy use, indexed for relative environmental impact) per capita and income per capita, but there's a lot of scatter and a lot of trends that don't conform.
Here's a couple data points to mull: China went from 1.2 tons CO2 per capita and $595 in 1975 to 2.7 and $4568 in 2002. So income rose 8x while emissions rose a little over 2x. Meanwhile, the US went from $19831 income per head to 34567 from 1975 to 2002, yet emissions per head stayed basically constant (looking at energy use rather than CO2 emissions yields a ~5% increase per energy use capita in the US, 1975 to 2000, much less than the income growth).
So: I am of the impression that while wealth is correlated with energy use, it is not so tightly coupled that you can definitively declare "Every cent you spend is in turn spent on power." Whether or not that statement is right or wrong has rather large implications; I'd like to figure this out. I think it is wrong, or at least greatly oversimplified.
In the absence of federal leadership, get your state to talk to other, adjacent populous states, kinda like this.
I choose On schedule and Bugless.
It's cool, though- this is just another curveball that God throws in now and again to test our faith.
3) To clarify- in the original post, I was referring to various supply-side claims that cutting taxes does not really reduce govt revenue. Yes, these arguments are rather specious, but they are out there. My example was that if you cut my taxes in half, my income (AGI, actually), would have to nearly double (not quite due to variable tax rates, etc.). But my general point was that I really don't think we're anywhere near to the right side of the Laffer Curve.
So, to close 2-4, yes, I agree with the general concept, but I don't think the curve is nice and smooth, and I don't think we are even close to the right hand side. And I will continue to mock those who push tax cuts with unrealistic claims about the budgetary impacts. But this is all only tangentially related to the central argument: is energy conservation self-defeating?
1) Got it. But your description is of course oversimplified. What of electricity, where much of the price is due to fixed costs (fuel costs are a sizable fraction, but a fraction nonetheless)? I supplicate myself at your feet again, but I think the net effect is that the elasticity will cause others to increase their usage by less than I decrease mine. Oil is a different matter, I don't quite buy the 1-for-1 substitution argument. References?
5) I don't live and breathe the paradox, but I know how it's supposed to work.
7) Does this not assume comparable energy intensity per dollar for various economic activities? In my case, the extra savings go toward mortgage interest or savings for my kids' college education. Sure, the banks take my money and use it for other things, but so did my utility. What if I apply my savings toward a PV array (which does have a positive energy balance, thanks)? I would submit that energy conservation results in a larger amount of energy saved per dollar than would be marginally produced in most cases by re-allocating those savings.
So: let's table the tax revenue elasticity issue (to conclude, yes, the Laffer curve is a reasonable description of the dynamics, but I don't think it's smooth and I think we are still on the left). As for conservation, I argue that there is not a 1:1 effect on one's energy savings causing increased energy use. Generally 1:1 as direct energy consumption is particularly energy intensive relative to other activities. As for the global market, I argue that there also is not a 1:1 correspondence between energy saved here vs. increased energy there. Fixed costs are one reason.
So: I maintain that energy conservation is not self-defeating in terms of aggregate energy use (really, associated environmental impact- I have nothing against energy use per se, at least until direct thermal impacts become significant, which is a long way away).
I agree with your sentiment about "the futility of trying to micromanage into energy use reductions", but not that energy conservation per se is self-defeating. I would contend that energy conservation is not a sufficient means to achieving a sustainable energy pattern (never did), but it is a constructive component.
The Jevons paradox is interesting and certainly relevant in some contexts. I'd certainly be interested in any references you have viz a viz energy conservation (esp. empirical studies).
1) Explain the original argument on fungibility here. I've don't follow. Yes, I know what the Laffer Curve is.
2) I'm not. Are you? In the US? I'm at the 33% marginal rate, and adding in every other state, local, etc. tax does not get me to 2/3. Neither on a marginal or average (total tax paid / total income) basis.
2a) But it will not cause my gross income to double, to maintain the same (or even close) level of taxes/govt revenue. I suppose I am supposed to go start a new business b/c of the increased incentive of better marginal return due to lower taxes or something.
3) I know. It was a simplification (I assumed a model where the goal was to maintain tax revenue per person-a simplification, I know)
4) Agreed. People do differ greatly on where that threshold is.
5) I supplicate myself at your feet, knowing that you've never made a similar error. I stand corrected.
6) Yes, but they key issue is that people use the paradox to argue that the concept of energy conservation, in general, is self-defeating. That argument is generally false.
7) I would argue that in most contexts, lighting usage is dictated primarily by need, modified only slightly by costs. If I reduce my lighting energy use by 3x by installing CFLs (as I have), it is highly, highly unlikely that I will somehow use anywhere near 3x more lighting. *Maybe* 1.1x, because I'm a little more careless about turning lights off now. *Maybe* 1.5x for the average Joe. In the specific case of CFL substitution, no, it is not equally likely.
I'm not sure I can justify holding your hand for much more.
Your needless condescension is duly noted. Cheers.
Yes, it is a hidden cost.
But the amount of mercury in a CFL is comparable to the avoided mercury emissions from coal-fired plants, given the US electricity mix.
And you have no chance of recycling that mercury.
Yes, things like Priuses and CFLs have external costs. But are you arguing that Hummers and incandescents don't?