New at Reason

February 16, 2007

Ronald Bailey looks ahead to a future where nations will be trading carbon usage - whether they like it or not.

Comments

tros|2.16.07 @ 2:52AM|#

It would shure be nice to give that research grant to a green energy company instead of a sleazy and connected utility company.

No, I mean a company that already makes green energy. Not one that promises to in the future. That's bullshit.

Now I understand this is sarcasm, you don't have a bunch of luddite solar panel salesman lining up for government subsidies, obviously. You've got to recognize why Capitalism has a bad name when the people controlling ALL of the capital happen to be children of Satan.

Damn I think it is going to take all of the Reason staff working overtime to rationalize all of the retarded two-sided arguments coming up in the next 2 years.

|2.16.07 @ 3:01AM|#

Any reductions in GHG emissions will have to be accomplished with a mix of increased energy efficiency in buildings and appliances, expanded nuclear power generation, a switch to hybrid vehicles, more energy from renewable sources, and, here's the big one, some kind of cost-effective technology to bury carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

This list misses a very important cause of GHG reduction due to artificially high carbon emission prices: Decreased productivity, yielding lower consumption and less wealth.

|2.16.07 @ 5:32AM|#

Sounds like business as usual...once something's profitable, the big dogs use government to crowd out the competition.

I'm not ignorant of externalities, nor flipant about their effects, but at the same time, I can't immediately call them (the newly converted corporations) heroes...

|2.16.07 @ 8:19AM|#

Sounds like business as usual...once something's profitable, the big dogs use government to crowd out the competition.

Unless you beleive in miracles, only the highly capitalized companies will have the wherewithal to develop and deploy significant alternatives to hydrocarbon-based energy...why wouldn't market-lovers like them to do that vs the highly capitalized governments...garage inventors aren't going to get ot done...

Here's an interesting view of the scale of the energy change needed (from IEEE)...

Yearly global oil consumption: 1 cubic mile

Number of new nuclear plants needed to replace that energy: 52 each yr for 50 yrs

Number of new wind turbines: 33,000 new built each yr for 50 yrs

Number Solar panels: 91million new deployed each yr fo 50 yrs.

These are not numbers that any but the largest companies can scale to meet...in my opinion of course ;-)

|2.16.07 @ 8:41AM|#

"you don't have a bunch of luddite solar panel salesman lining up for government subsidies, obviously."

So wrong you're embarassing yourself. Do a little google on government subsidies to green energy/fues to see why.

Guy Montag|2.16.07 @ 8:54AM|#

Carbon Credits for Sale Here!

Feeling bad about your carbon footprint? Well, do something about it! At Montag's Carbon Credit Store we will help your carbon score so that you can sleep well at night.

We have been based on carbon for over 45 years and are ready to help you. Contact one of our Carbon Based Representatives and find out how!

|2.16.07 @ 9:29AM|#

"Setting up a carbon market or imposing a carbon tax will boost the price of high-carbon fuels. Facing higher energy prices will provide plenty of motivation for companies to develop and deploy new energy technologies and for consumers to buy more efficient cars, appliances, and homes. No federal fairy-godmother dispensing corporate welfare required."


There isn't a market fairy godmother either. All those billions spent replacing cheap carbon based fuels could be spent more productively elswhere. What is the opportunity cost of all of this? All of this for an unproven theory and for carbon reductions that even by the theory won't make a dime's worth of difference. What a waste.

|2.16.07 @ 10:04AM|#

Hmm. Japan has had strong gov't programs pushing for the development of energy-sipping devices, as well as subsidies (gradually getting phased out over time) for solar cell panels.

Result: Japanese corporations have developed a portfolio of energy-sipping technologies that they are now able to turn around and sell to other countries in Asia that want the same thing.

US sat on its butt for years and didn't do anything. US SUVs now cannot be sold in China because they don't meet China's emission standards. Japanese-made SUVs can.

Wailing loudly about how MEEEN the rest of the world is for slapping on requirements etc. and how this distorts the free market and "all those billions spent replacing cheap carbon based fuels could be spent more productively elsewhere" isn't going to open the rest of the world markets to us. The rest of the world is defining the game--we either jump aboard or sit smugly in our perfect-free-market-waiting-for-someone-else-to-develop-the-technology and watch the rest of the world pass us by.

|2.16.07 @ 10:22AM|#

"This list misses a very important cause of GHG reduction due to artificially high carbon emission prices: Decreased productivity, yielding lower consumption and less wealth."

You mean like how mandatory seatbelt laws and the banning of leaded gasoline were going to eliminate automobile manufacturing in the United States?

Have a little faith in the innovative capacity of private industry with sufficient profit motives.

TobiFromBavaria|2.16.07 @ 10:25AM|#

Those "plants that bury their carbon dioxide emissions by pumping them into underground reservoirs" (Bailey's article) need about three times as much coal as a normal coal plant. That's totally mad.

Guy Montag|2.16.07 @ 10:25AM|#

grumpy realist,

China has emmissions standards for vehicles? BAHAHAHA! It is already the filthiest place north of India! Somehow the US can't sell cars there for environmental reasons? ROFLMAO!

Just because Japan's Socialist economy produces stuff for other socialist purchasers, within the framework of this whole Socialist Welfare Scheme designed to take money from productive economies and dump it in the lap of non-producers, does not make it a "good idea". Actually, with all of the smoke and mirrors involved in this scheme it smells of fraud.

BTW, the Montag Carbon Credit Store sells only 100% authentic organic credits, no fake silicone based credits. They are biodegradable and CFC free!

|2.16.07 @ 10:28AM|#

I'm old enough to remember when eliminating SO2 and NOx from smokestack emissions was going to be so expensive that the credits were going to be traded on the mercantile exchanges.

As it turned out, within a few years, it became apparent that the anti-environmental chicken littles had, as usual, vastly over-estimated the cost of cleaning up their operations.

Which is not to say that sequestering CO2 or converting to renewables will be as easy as scrubbing acid rain precursors, but it's important to keep in mind the track record of those predicting economic collapse because of environmental regualtions.

|2.16.07 @ 10:40AM|#

Uh, yeah, why would anyone with an air pollution problem enact emissions laws?

|2.16.07 @ 11:05AM|#

"I'm old enough to remember when eliminating SO2 and NOx from smokestack emissions was going to be so expensive that the credits were going to be traded on the mercantile exchanges."

Joe, cutting NOx emissions still cost money. Yeah, the trading program meant that it cost less than it could have and it didn't cause a depression but that doesn't mean it didn't cost something. Was it worth it? That is a different debate, but you can't deny there is a cost associated with it. Same is true with this. Coal is being used because it is the cheapest form of energy. Replace it with something more expensive and you are loosing wealth. There is one way you might not loose wealth, in that perhaps the global warming superstition will end the Green's anti-nuclear superstition. If that happens and nuclear is really the cheapest way to produce power but the market couldn't use it because of the superstitious fears of nuclear power, now replaced by global warming superstition, we accidentally end up better off with nice new cheap nuke plants replacing coal plants. But God, government by Gia worshiping superstition doesn't give me a lot of comfort.

|2.16.07 @ 11:08AM|#

Have a little faith in the innovative capacity of private industry with sufficient profit motives.

Oh, I do. How about having the profit motive be that the world is warming and there will be certain effects that people will want to mitigate?

Is that sufficient enough?

And consider that the difference in year 2100 per capita world GDP between the high-growth A1 course and the environmentally conscious B1 course of the IPCC SRES is 30,000 1990 dollars. That $30,000 surplus wealth per person per year provides an awful lot of demand and an awful lot of opportunity for profitable innovation.

|2.16.07 @ 11:17AM|#

John,

You're completely right if there are no costs associated with CO2 emissions and if CO2 emmissions don't present us with a classic externality.

Yes, cutting CO2 emissions costs money, but it isn't a foregone conclusion that it costs us more money than it eventually saves. On the whole, I actually agree that the costs are probably too high (and uncertain) given current technology to sufficiently reduce CO2 emissions via a cap and trade system, but calling this whole thing Gia worshiping superstition is about as useful as pretending that wind power is as cheap as coal.

|2.16.07 @ 11:53AM|#

Artificial sweeteners are the cause of increased carbon in the atmosphere. Fat people are a carbon sink. Successful dieters release their carbon back to the environment.

Outlaw Skinny People.

Guy Montag|2.16.07 @ 12:00PM|#

but calling this whole thing Gia worshiping superstition is about as useful as pretending that wind power is as cheap as coal.

It may not be as useful as you would wish, but it is accurate.

Fat people are a carbon sink.

And a great source of soylent diesel!

|2.16.07 @ 12:17PM|#

Yes, gaia worship and socialism are behind everything that Guy Montag doesn't believe in. We get it.

|2.16.07 @ 12:44PM|#

And consider that the difference in year 2100 per capita world GDP between the high-growth A1 course and the environmentally conscious B1 course of the IPCC SRES is 30,000 1990 dollars.

You know, it actually belies a subtle bias for anti-growth policies or a blatant failure to understand economics that the fantastic difference between the SRES per capita GDPs doesn't raise alarm bells from more IPCC scientists.

If we could ask our great-grandchildren whether they would rather have 60% greater income or have the global temperature between 2 and 4 degrees Fahrenheit cooler, what would they answer? That it occurs to no one in the policy push today to even pose the question speaks volumes.

Maybe Gaia worship and socialism are indeed the best explanations...

|2.16.07 @ 12:49PM|#

An artificial market created by government regulatory agencies is not a free market. Hence the reason the SO2 and NOX markets collapsed. Hence the reason the carbon markets in Europe have turned into a plan for Britain to subsidize the Continent.

|2.16.07 @ 12:57PM|#

I didn't know so many people accepted IPCC writings as gospel on some subjects but completely bogus on others. Apparently, they are best known and respected for their economic positions. And one cannot beleive that global warming exists and is man-made without also believing that IPCC solutions to global warming are infeasible. Oh wait, I fit that later description -- but I'm surely a figment of my own imagination.

And why exactly do socialists want slow growth? As far as I can tell the biggest up-and-coming polluter is China. But hey, never mind this blindingly obvious point. Socialism = things you don't like, and IPCC's economic idiocy means that CO2 emissions cannot possibly lead to global warming.

|2.16.07 @ 1:05PM|#

Chris S.,

At least your strawmen are carbon neutral...

|2.16.07 @ 1:14PM|#

Ah yes, no one was citing the IPCC for its economic conclusions, and I made up the "socialist and gaia worshiping" canard from scratch. You're right -- these positions certainly sound like a strawmen, inasmuch as they're ridiculous. But something needs to be more than just ridiculous to fit that description. Try again.

|2.16.07 @ 1:36PM|#

Try again.

Okay.

I didn't know so many people accepted IPCC writings as gospel on some subjects but completely bogus on others.

I have not disagreed in this forum with any of the conclusions drawn by the February 2nd IPCC summary.

Apparently, they are best known and respected for their economic positions.

I did not say that. But these are the numbers that they predict and that guide the scenarios all of their climate predictions work with. I have in the past questioned how pessimistic their predicted growth in the high-growth scenario is. But the difference between A1 and B1 is still striking and makes its own argument.

As far as I can tell the biggest up-and-coming polluter is China.

China's growth is precisely due to their shriving themselves of socialism. Yes, the government wants to maintain as much control as it can, but calling China's growth the result of socialism is comical.

IPCC's economic idiocy means that CO2 emissions cannot possibly lead to global warming.

Since I asked above whether our descendants a century hence would rather live with $30,000 more per year or a world 3 degrees warmer, what makes you think I don't believe in global warming?

If you are incapable of arguing against individuals, but only against collectives that you discover or imagine, well, ... okay.

Guy Montag|2.16.07 @ 1:39PM|#

And why exactly do socialists want slow growth?

Actually, I don't know any who want slow growth, but they all seem to be under the illusion that they can socialize things and they will be just as efficient but more 'fair'. In reality, all of the risky schemes that they advocate do result in slow, even negative, growth.

As far as I can tell the biggest up-and-coming polluter is China. But hey, never mind this blindingly obvious point. Socialism = things you don't like, and IPCC's economic idiocy means that CO2 emissions cannot possibly lead to global warming.

In my case that is completly false. Socialism is just one of many things that I don't like, to include Jeff Gordon who, as far as I know, is not a Socialist.

|2.16.07 @ 1:43PM|#

When did I say China's growth was a result of socialism. You're confusing results with goals. No, economic growth is almost never the result of a command economy, but that doesn't imply that economic stagnation is the goal of socialism. That too is ridiculous. To imagine that this is a socialist plot is very bizarre.

If you are incapable of arguing against individuals, but only against collective that you discover or imagine, well, ...okay.

I agree. Tell me about these "Gaia worshipers." I'm eager to know how many of them you've met.

|2.16.07 @ 1:46PM|#

By the way, my initial post was in response to the "Gaia worshiping superstition comment," which most certainly was a denial of global warming or human causation, so I don't apologize for my comments on that front. To the extent that you agreed with John's characterization, but you don't actually beleive it's a myth, I'm sorry that you can't read and you inadvertantly defended a position that you don't hold.

|2.16.07 @ 1:50PM|#

Tell me about these "Gaia worshipers." I'm eager to know how many of them you've met.

Fair enough. I'll try to avoid such inflammatory throwaway lines in future.

Guy Montag|2.16.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Yes, gaia worship and socialism are behind everything that Guy Montag doesn't believe in. We get it.

Where do you get these crazy ideas from? That passage does not even make sense!

BTW, I really like that Gia worship thing.

|2.16.07 @ 2:27PM|#

Where do I get these crazy ideas? A search of your name and "Socialism" on this site yields three pages of hits (that's about 20 hits), and a search of your name and "Socialist" yields about five pages of hits (roughly 30). You also explicitly threw your support behind the Gaia worshiping comment on this very thread.

Wow, empirically observable facts about your posts on this site... crazy stuff, I know.

|2.16.07 @ 2:29PM|#

Oh, and as far as the "Gia" thing (as opposed to "Gaia")that was John's typo -- I merely used his langauge. So yes, I agree that "Gia" worshiping is funny.

|2.16.07 @ 2:44PM|#

John,

I know it cost money. The point is, it cost a lot less money than those who opposed the Clean Air Act Amendments told us it would.

Hey, longtime readers, what did Reason Magazine say about the Clean Air Act Amendments back in 1990?

|2.16.07 @ 2:46PM|#

Mike P,

"How about having the profit motive be that the world is warming and there will be certain effects that people will want to mitigate?"

But then we run into a commons problem.

And since when does the cost of solving a problem remain constant if it is allowed to grow for a century?

|2.16.07 @ 2:47PM|#

...and since when does severe environmental disruption have no effect on economic growth?

|2.16.07 @ 2:51PM|#

James,

"Hence the reason the SO2 and NOX markets collapsed." Uh, no. The Acid Rain markets collapses because removing SO2 and NOx fom emissions turned out to be so easy that it was cheaper to install the technologies than to buy credits.

|2.16.07 @ 3:03PM|#

But then we run into a commons problem.

I do agree that a lot of the work to mitigate effects of global warming will require large scale collective efforts. I further agree that, when I argue that people in the warmer world will have massively more wealth* with which to deal with global warming effects, I am at least implicitly suggesting that much of that wealth will somehow be directed to those most affected.

Nonetheless, a wealthier society has this choice as well as many others that the less wealthy but cooler society does not.

* The $30,000 difference in 2100 between A1 and B1 represents seven times the total per capita global GDP of 1990.

|2.16.07 @ 3:05PM|#

James,

I might also add that, as far as I know, every advanced capital market is supported by regulations of some sort, so if you're right, we might as well scratch NYSE, LSE, and CBOT from the list of "markets." One might also wonder whether the firm distinction between property laws and other laws is really static or 100% clear. I'm sure you recognize the importance of propery

|2.16.07 @ 3:06PM|#

Uh, "property laws." I suffer from premature comment-alation.

|2.16.07 @ 3:16PM|#

And since when does the cost of solving a problem remain constant if it is allowed to grow for a century?
...and since when does severe environmental disruption have no effect on economic growth?

Policy efforts that make carbon more costly in order to decrease global warming are of necessity forgoing some amount of exponential growth.

Betting against an exponential is always a bad bet. The onus of proof rests on those who argue for such policies, not on those who resist them.

For your two examples... (1) The cost of solving the problem is not constant, but it is not exponential either. (2) The effect on economic growth plus the damage itself must exceed the loss in the exponential of the global warming abatement policies before the latter make sense. Again, the burden of proof is on those suggesting such policies.

|2.16.07 @ 4:34PM|#

US sat on its butt for years and didn't do anything. US SUVs now cannot be sold in China because they don't meet China's emission standards. Japanese-made SUVs can.

"US sat on its butt"???? Such a collectivist term. It is individuals who decide what is best for them, and not countries - a country is not a living thing.

The Japanese government has indeed invested on some alternative fuels. It has also wasted a lot of money in other ways, as well - the fact that some companies have received some fat subsidies from the taxpayers in Japan means little: it is corporate welfare, nothing more. the Japanese people are NOT ahead in alternative energy use or technologies any more than other peoples, but they sure have to maintain a big, fat, bloated government, just like the rest of us.

|2.16.07 @ 5:30PM|#

And why exactly do socialists want slow growth?

Mostly what they want is control. And if the price of that is an impoverished nation (or world), well, there are plenty of historical examples that is a price they are willing to pay.

|2.16.07 @ 6:36PM|#

joe: Thank you for proving my point. The market dictated by the government bore no relation to the value of the good being "produced." All at once, no buyers. No buyers, no market. Collapse.

Chris S: the regulations you cite were created to manage an existing market. You propose that the NYSE would not exist without regulations, but since its existence predates the SEC, this is demonstrably false. The supposed "pollution markets," however, are entirely artificial: they trade solely in the fruits of regulation, which is fundamentally arbitrary and capricious.

Guy Montag|2.16.07 @ 8:08PM|#

There isn't a market fairy godmother either.

True, no matter what the Socialists wish.

Guy Montag|2.16.07 @ 8:16PM|#

I might also add that, as far as I know, every advanced capital market is supported by regulations of some sort, so if you're right, we might as well scratch NYSE, LSE, and CBOT from the list of "markets." One might also wonder whether the firm distinction between property laws and other laws is really static or 100% clear. I'm sure you recognize the importance of propery

Well, harking back to Ayn Rand, we do need a government with police power to protect the interests of the propery owners as well as the common safety.

With the well picked items that you mention I suspect that you are wilfully attempting a bad argument as fair transactions are one thing that even the "big Ls" tend to support.

If this is on the difficult side for you I suggest you read a few of Miss Rand's essays, but stay away from David Weigel, he is a Commie in L clothing.

|2.18.07 @ 12:59PM|#

We have got to tell congress not to do this as it will diminish both liberty and prosperity.

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

There is so much science that indicates that the anthropogenic component of any warming is not significant.

Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0742549232/reasonmagazineA/

http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=366

|2.18.07 @ 4:41PM|#

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years

http://tinyurl.com/2yfyg5

|2.18.07 @ 5:39PM|#

Ah...the Unstoppable Hot Air of Avery and Singer:
http://tinyurl.com/ypxlpx

Rick,
the 1500 year thing is a regional warming, bouncing between the Artic and the Antartic along the Atlantic Oceans; it is not a global warming. Yes it affects the global average, but it is regional. The warming trend occuring now is global, not limimted to any region.

"We have got to tell congress not to do this as it will diminish both liberty and prosperity."
I disagree, many of the things necessary to both mitigate and adapt to glbal climate change also enhance prosperity and increase freedom. For instance, reducing/eliminating many innovation strangling regulations and corporate welfare; increased efficiencyy on all levels frees us from dependency from state supported infrastructure. Fighting corruption worldwide is necessary in order to create the various governmental and nongovernmental institutions needed to do what is needed. Manny of these things are worth doing on their own appart from securing the global climate. As such the costs, as espoused by the the likes of Avery and Singer et al, are exagerated.

|2.18.07 @ 10:35PM|#

For instance, reducing/eliminating many innovation strangling regulations and corporate welfare;

I doubt you will find any disagreement here on this.

increased efficiencyy on all levels frees us from dependency from state supported infrastructure.

I do not know what these words in this order mean.

Fighting corruption worldwide is necessary in order to create the various governmental and nongovernmental institutions needed to do what is needed.

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra to you too.

|2.19.07 @ 12:09AM|#

Manny of these things are worth doing on their own appart from securing the global climate.

These problems with government management of the world that you imagine can be corrected in the process of dealing with global warming didn't happen by chance. They happened because people in the past empowered governments to some ends -- ends probably deemed worthwhile.

Why do you think that the massive government control and effort required for most of the global warming remedies being discussed won't compound the issues you see even more? Examples of extant problems with governments are an argument against public policy solutions for global warming.

|2.19.07 @ 3:48AM|#

"'increased efficiencyy on all levels frees us from dependency from state supported infrastructure.'

I do not know what these words in this order mean."

Ah sorry for being waaay tooo brief. Improving efficiency of scale in things like sewage treatment, water supply, and electrical generation systems, telephones etc...ie the optimum scale has been shrinking in sized...means that we need centralized government tied utilites less and less....much to their annoyance. This means that equipped with such, people in developing countries have less need or desire to give/demand bribes; terrorists/revolutionaries would have fewer easy targets.

"'Fighting corruption worldwide is necessary in order to create the various governmental and nongovernmental institutions needed to do what is needed.'

Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra to you too."

Gilgamesh and Enkidou in Uruk!

Ok a little too vague and incoherent. Anyway. Too much government is too slow to respond to climate change, especially a global one. It doesn't have the 'At War' aspect to it that would drive a government, especially anything resembling a hug global government into sufficient action. Only Free Markets unburdened by uneeded regulations can respond quickly enough. That Free Market does need to the environment included into it in some fashion in order to do this. As I see it, the whole structure of Regulations and Subsidies actually prevent action to mitigate CO2 and adaptation to Climat Change.

IMO, a massive Global Carbon Tax won't do; politicians will get too addictexc to the money and just try keep burning the carbon to keep the tax money coming in; some transportation related CO2 tax might be hepful in the mix, if implemented correctly. I am more positive about some sort of Tax on Inneficiency...if only to fund the EnergyStar program.

A Global Carbon Credit trading scheme is needed as it is part and parcel with including the Value of a Stable Climate™ as part of the Freemarket; getting that set up right will be a problem...this is where the corruption bit comes to play; it won't work if there is too much corruption/graft/etc.

A Mandatory Cap n Trade™ I am dubious about; I am more in favor of requiring our respective governments going carbon-neutral, which would generate leadership and establish a permanent skill and knowledge base. Note that right now we, the U.S., are at an impasse WRT China and India because neither side will do anything about Climate Change mostly because the other side won't do anything. Someone needs to step up to the plate and swing the bat. Nothing happens if you don't swing the bat.

|2.19.07 @ 5:18PM|#

Sam:

I disagree, many of the things necessary to both mitigate and adapt to glbal climate

You're making two errors. 1) I was referring to the harm of government mandated carbon trading. 2) You're assuming that humans are causing significant warming.

|2.19.07 @ 5:37PM|#

Sam,

the 1500 year thing is a regional warming, bouncing between the Artic and the Antartic along the Atlantic Oceans; it is not a global warming. Yes it affects the global average, but it is regional. The warming trend occuring now is global, not limimted to any region.

What?? That makes no sense. If the phenomena affects the global average in an upward direction, then it will be computed as evidence for GW.

|2.20.07 @ 5:33AM|#

"You're making two errors. 1) I was referring to the harm of government mandated carbon trading. 2) You're assuming that humans are causing significant warming."

1. Point taken, you were refering loosely to Ron's article. I was even more loosely refering to Do Something™. To the effect of that, I too am dubious of Big-Government Solution™

2. Without CO2 the earth would be at -18 degrees celsius. At X amount of CO2, preindustrial of about 280 ppm, it is at about 14 degrees Celsius. Model after model, since Svante Arrhenius first climate model in 1896, predicts that a doubling of CO2, the 2X, referred to so often, would result in an additional 3 degrees C of forcing (other secondary effects not included); note that the effects of increasing CO2 are mostly logarithmic, not linear, which results in the odd proportion. 18+14=32. 32/3=rough 'significance' of 1/10. It is guestimated that by around 2100 we will reach 2X (or 550ish ppm of CO2). Thus the 'significance' of our future expected CO2 output is roughly ten percent. Right now, due to industrial output, and yes isotope changes show it is our CO2, we are at about 380 ppm. which so far has resulted in roughly 1 Celsius of forcing (of which due to climate lag in the oceans, we have seen only about 0.7c of that). This roughly results in a current Anthropogenic CO2 'significance' of 1/30.

"What?? That makes no sense. If the phenomena affects the global average in an upward direction, then it will be computed as evidence for GW."

perfectly sensible. For example a change in the solar energy affects the entire earth equally and changes the global mean average, as it did during the 30's. But a cyclical change in a Region, due to changes in that region, affects the globe unequally, yet drags the global mean average upward due to the bias created by the one region.

Think of the World Series where one team scores a bazillion runs to zero in the first of seven games ...but loses the rest 0-1. The superior average number of runs goes to the loser, but the winer is the one with less average runs. It's a statistical bias.

WRT the Mideival Warm Period, it really just affected the Northern Hemisphere; and then mostly just West Europe/North Atlantic Ocean. The Southern Hemisphere was mostly unaffected. That likely was the 1500 year D-O cycle in action.

An increase in CO2 behaves globally, as it is a well dispersed gas. It will, like solar changes, affect the globe equally, and thus give a representative mean avearage change.

Is the 1500 year thing affecting the North Atlantic now? I would say it is somewhat too soon, the NCPA article lists the start of the MWP at 950 AD, 1500 years later should be 300+ years from now; they caveat that by saying +/-500 years...a pretty loose variance. And even if it was now, it should only affect that ocean and its neighboring continents, not the whole world equally.

Since the globe's temp is changing mostly equally, and certainly not simply the North Atlantic, then something else must be at work. The Sun and CO2 are good candidates; while the sun did increase avearage output early in the 20th centurey, it has been functonally static since, leaving you know what.

Regional positive amplifiers, such as the arctic (and negating regions such as the Antartic) do give the impression of unequal changes...so be careful.

|2.21.07 @ 12:33AM|#

But a cyclical change in a Region, due to changes in that region, affects the globe unequally, yet drags the global mean average upward due to the bias created by the one region.

Which would be mistaken for anthropomorphic warming.

An increase in CO2 behaves globally, as it is a well dispersed gas. It will, like solar changes, affect the globe equally, and thus give a representative mean avearage change.

There is no evidence that solar changes or CO2 or anything else affect the globe equally with in any given timeframe To the contrary.

while the sun did increase avearage output early in the 20th centurey, it has been functonally static since,

If true, that's consistent with sea level increases, unlike green house gas production

|2.21.07 @ 5:09AM|#

"Which would be mistaken for anthropomorphic warming."

Er....no.

"There is no evidence that solar changes or CO2 or anything else affect the globe equally with in any given timeframe To the contrary."

I am going to strongly disagree with you. That's like saying the Maunder Minimum didn't help make the earth cool a few hundred years back.

"If true, that's consistent with sea level increases, unlike green house gas production"

You are assuming that your one abstract paper is more true than the entire IPCC body of work on the matter. We must be careful with our assumption.

|2.21.07 @ 6:25AM|#

"Which would be mistaken for anthropomorphic warming."

And thats 'Anthropogenic' too.

|2.21.07 @ 11:28AM|#

How can you possibly equate:

"There is no evidence that solar changes or CO2 or anything else affect the globe equally with in any given timeframe."

And

The Maunder Minimum didn't help make the earth cool a few hundred years back.

The former is concerned with parts, the latter, the whole earth. And of course the latter is wrong.

We must be careful with our assumption.

There is certainly evidence for cherry picking (at best) in the IPCC meta study.

And thats 'Anthropogenic' too.

"anthropomorphic" Ha! And thank you. Please be so kind as to note that that was the only time in this exchange that I did that.

|2.21.07 @ 11:35AM|#

A better way to make that one point is for me to observe that the Maunder Minimum didn't cool the globe by the same factor everywhere for any given time frame.

|2.21.07 @ 3:19PM|#

Rick,
each region will respond differently to a broad influence like the sun, som will respond more than others. Solar and CO2 changes are not concerned with parts...they are broad in nature. This is basic climnatology. Regions have factors which respond to those broad changes; and they also respond individually to other thingsk, like local cycles.