Cap and Trade

[Jim]

Re: Cap and Trade

Nice graph. Here is another:


Base line is everything.

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Cap and Trade

1) Did the bill pass the in the house? I can't seem to find any info so I am guessing they didn't get to it yet.

2) Global Climate Change is real.... historical evidence proves it to be true... (Cenozoic Era, Cretaceous period, Palaeolithic Era aka ice age, etc, etc.) However I am not convinced as of yet that humans have as big an impact on the world as we would like to believe... we are an arrogant species IMHO.

That being said...

3) I can't wait for MIT to hurry up and make my carbon emission cutting Cheerios!

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Cap and Trade

A little off topic but still cool.

[Munger]

Re: Cap and Trade

Nice graph. Here is another:


Base line is everything.

Zooming in enough on any signal results in noise. 130 years of data vs. 7.

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Cap and Trade

1) Did the bill pass the in the house? I can't seem to find any info so I am guessing they didn't get to it yet.

2) Global Climate Change is real.... historical evidence proves it to be true... (Cenozoic Era, Cretaceous period, Palaeolithic Era aka ice age, etc, etc.) However I am not convinced as of yet that humans have as big an impact on the world as we would like to believe... we are an arrogant species IMHO.

That being said...

3) I can't wait for MIT to hurry up and make my carbon emission cutting Cheerios!

Answer to 1).... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/...s_climate_bill

Hurray for some and Oh Shit for others.....

[Jim]

Re: Cap and Trade

On queue. Thank you:



Maybe this goes too far?

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cap and Trade

And my question to Munger is: Are all of NOAA's data coming from airports? Most of the weather stations that I know of have been placed near buildings, even placed in downtowns, even sited near pavements. And as the buildings get bigger and surround the weather stations, the bias gets worse.

The least bias is at airports, but even at airports, things change. The airport terminal gets bigger, and the runways get larger. So we have problems in climatology; there is a bias in favour of warming at most weather stations due to their location.

Then there are other sins committed by climatologists. At UC Berkeley, for example, the climate station one set of years was sited in a ravine, another set of years set upon the roof-top of a building, and for a few years, the climate station was sited on the ground next to the Earth Sciences Building, on top of a small hill.

I did my master's thesis decades ago mapping the temperatures at night in the Twin Cities. To my surprise, I found a 20 or 30 degree F difference in temperatures in sites just a few miles apart. Lakes had very little effect, but buildings did. Most of that difference was observed in the downtown of Minneapolis or St. Paul just due to size of the buildings there. A 100 feet would make an enorous difference in observed temperature above the street at night, especially due to the reflexion of heat from buildings.

So, I am sceptical of the global warming thesis, not just due to ancedotal evidence at SF Airport but due to the built-in bias in favour of warming at most of the weather stations, especially in urban areas, nearly everywhere.

Life has shown me that it is difficult to have a God's-eye view of the world, whether on climate, when human life begins, market predictions, or anything else. That is just the way it is.

Al Gore's thesis of global warming is based upon an all-knowing God's-eye view of the world. But the matter is hardly settled, and the so-called "consensus of scientists" on the subject of global warming is shrinking every day.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cap and Trade

One review of the climate change within and wanderings of the edge of the Sahara Desert underscores the fact that the Earth's climate is always changing. Change is normal.

Six to eight thousand years ago, the Sahara was a savanna grassland, even with a river aside from the Nile: Wadi Howar. People used to live outside the Nile River Valley in the Sahara's savanna grassland itself. But twelve thousand years ago, the Sahara was a desert again, but colder because of the Ice Age worldwide.

The southern edge of the Sahara has recently been moving northward because of the intrusion of monsoon rains from the tropics.

http://www.livescience.com/history/0...ara_rains.html

Two thousand years ago, Cyranaica (sp?) in Libya was a grain-growing region of the Roman Empire. Its desication (sp?) to-day suggests climate change or else over-grazing by goats.

[flintlock]

Re: Cap and Trade

One review of the climate change within and wanderings of the edge of the Sahara Desert underscores the fact that the Earth's climate is always changing. Change is normal.

Six to eight thousand years ago, the Sahara was a savanna grassland, even with a river aside from the Nile: Wadi Howar. People used to live outside the Nile River Valley in the Sahara's savanna grassland itself. But twelve thousand years ago, the Sahara was a desert again, but colder because of the Ice Age worldwide.

The southern edge of the Sahara has recently been moving northward because of the intrusion of monsoon rains from the tropics.

http://www.livescience.com/history/0...ara_rains.html

Two thousand years ago, Cyranaica (sp?) in Libya was a grain-growing region of the Roman Empire. Its desication (sp?) to-day suggests climate change or else over-grazing by goats.

Excellent point.

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Cap and Trade

One review of the climate change within and wanderings of the edge of the Sahara Desert underscores the fact that the Earth's climate is always changing. Change is normal.

Six to eight thousand years ago, the Sahara was a savanna grassland, even with a river aside from the Nile: Wadi Howar. People used to live outside the Nile River Valley in the Sahara's savanna grassland itself. But twelve thousand years ago, the Sahara was a desert again, but colder because of the Ice Age worldwide.

The southern edge of the Sahara has recently been moving northward because of the intrusion of monsoon rains from the tropics.

http://www.livescience.com/history/0...ara_rains.html

Two thousand years ago, Cyranaica (sp?) in Libya was a grain-growing region of the Roman Empire. Its desication (sp?) to-day suggests climate change or else over-grazing by goats.

Cool stuff Steve. I think climate change is a real thing, but more natural than not.... despite what the TV likes to tell me.

[Munger]

Re: Cap and Trade

On queue. Thank you:



Maybe this goes too far?

That's interesting; I hadn't seen that before. I am by no means a climate expert. I suppose part of the issue is how non-experts may determine what is valid.

My instinct that there is some truth to man-made global warming is, I suppose, based largely on the supposed "consensus" of climate scientists. I don't think it plausible that these scientists have looked at the contradictory data and just put their heads in the sand. This is not how academic scientists typically operate.

But anyway, your chart got me looking into how this can be reconciled with the climate change hypothesis. I will first quibble by reiterating that I am by no means a climate scientist; I do find it hard to believe that the smart people who study climate change haven't looked at that graph before though.

Basically, it seems that scientists are indeed of the opinion that data going back that long "goes too far": short term temperature fluctuations are dependent upon solar cycles and amplified by the greenhouse effect; longer term temperature fluctuations are dependent upon to plate tectonics and cosmic ray flux:

Short term (10⁴ to 10⁶ years)

Geologically short-term (<120,000 year) temperatures are believed to be driven by orbital factors (see Milankovitch cycles) amplified by changes in greenhouse gases. The arrangements of land masses on the Earth's surface are believed to influence the effectiveness of these orbital forcing effects.

Medium term (10⁶ to 10⁸ years)

Continental drift affects the thermohaline circulation, which transfers heat between the equatorial regions and the poles, as does the extent of polar ice coverage.

The timing of ice ages throughout geologic history is in part controlled by the position of the continental plates on the surface of the Earth. When landmasses are concentrated near the polar regions, there is an increased chance for snow and ice to accumulate. Small changes in solar energy can tip the balance between summers in which the winter snow mass completely melts and summers in which the winter snow persists until the following winter. See the web site Paleomap Project for images of the polar landmass distributions through time.

Comparisons of plate tectonic continent reconstructions and paleoclimatic studies show that the Milankovitch cycles have the greatest effect during geologic eras when landmasses have been concentrated in polar regions, as is the case today. Today, Greenland, Antarctica, and the northern portions of Europe, Asia, and North America are situated such that a minor change in solar energy will tip the balance between year-round snow/ice preservation and complete summer melting. The presence of snow and ice is a well-understood positive feedback mechanism for climate. The Earth today is considered to be prone to ice age glaciations.

Another proposed factor in long term temperature change is the Uplift-Weathering Hypothesis, first put forward by T. C. Chamberlin in 1899 and later independently proposed in 1988 by Maureen Raymo and colleagues, where upthrusting mountain ranges expose minerals to weathering resulting in their chemical conversion to carbonates thereby removing CO₂ from the atmosphere and cooling the earth. Others have proposed similar effects due to changes in average water table levels and consequent changes in sub-surface biological activity and PH levels.

Long term (10⁸ to 10⁹ years)


Correlation between variations in cosmic ray flux (red) and change in sea temperature (black). Data as presented by Shaviv & Veizer^[10].


It has been proposed that long term galactic motions of the sun have a major influence on earth's climate. There are two principal motions, the first and most significant is the orbit of the sun around the galactic centre with a period of the order of 240 million years.^[11] Since this period is different from the rotation period of the galactic spiral arms, the sun, and the earth with it, will periodically pass through the arms (estimates of the period are uncertain and vary from 143 million years^[10] to 176 million years^[12]). The second is an oscillatory bobbing motion, similar to a floating buoy, which will periodically take the sun through the galactic disc. The period of this bobbing motion is 67 million years, so a pass through the galactic plane will occur every 33 million years.^[13] The causal link between these galactic motions and climate is postulated to be the effect that entering a denser region of the galaxy will have on increasing the cosmic ray flux (CRF).^[10] This theory has been criticised, both for overstating the correlation with CRF and for failing to propose a believable mechanism that would allow CRF to drive temperature.^[9] The claims by Henrik Svensmark that CRF also strongly affects short term climate changes is even more controversial and has been challenged by many.^[14][15]

It has also been suggested that there is some correlation between these galactic cycles and geological periods. The reason for this is postulated to be that the earth experiences many more impact events while passing through high density regions of the galaxy. Both the climate changes and sudden impacts may cause, or contribute to, extinction events.^[12]

Very long term (10⁹ years or more)

Jan Veizer^[4] and Nir Shaviv^[10] have proposed the interaction of cosmic rays, solar wind and the various magnetic fields to explain the long term evolution of earths climate. According to Shaviv, the early sun had emitted a stronger solar wind with a protective effect against cosmic rays. In that early age, a moderate greenhouse effect comparable to today's would have been sufficient to explain an ice free earth and the faint young sun paradox^[16]. The solar minimum around 2.4 billion years ago is consistent with an established cosmic ray flux modulation by a variable star formation rate in the Milky Way and there is also a hint of an extinction event at this time. Within the last billion years the solar wind has significantly diminished. It is only within this more recent time that passages of the heliosphere through the spiral arms of the galaxy have been able to gain a strong and regularly modulating influence as described above.
Over the very long term the energy output of the sun has gradually increased, on the order of 5% per billion (10⁹) years, and will continue to do so until it reaches the end of its current phase of stellar evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocl...olling_Factors

There is also the issue that data going back that far is pretty noisy, as it must be inferred from the geologic record. Here is the last 2000 years and last few million:

[descent]

Re: Cap and Trade

Just a little background on NASA GIS data from http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/com...mment.news.103

Who's Hushing Who At NASA GISS?
R.Danneskjöld, Thursday 05 February 2009

Apparently there is a big scandal brewing at NASA. A certain NASA GISS employee has been caught in some ethical lapses by taking credit for someone else's work. Not just anyone, but his arch enemy Steve McIntyre's from Climate Audit. Now this NASA employee is using his position at NASA to try to force Professor Roger Pielke, Jr's employer in to removing Roger's blog post. This is really pathetic.

This is apparently now coercion, on top of scientific plagiarism, on top of incompetence going on at NASA's GISS. Gavin A. Schmidt who is a frequent contributor to the man is to blame for all ills on earth website Real Climate is apparently digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. Lets see if we can follow this.

Steve McIntyre at ClimateAudit.org made another one of his famous discoveries of faulty data involving climate measurements. Steve is the guy responsible for totally destroying credibility of the Mann Hockey Stick (you know, that chart made famous by Al Gore on the cherry picker where it apparently shows temperatures for the past thousand years flat until about 1950 then it shoots through the roof). ClimateAudit frequently finds mistakes in other climate models and measurements. This time around the issue started with Steve McIntyre discovering problems with data from Antarctic weather stations. Apparently the temperature measurements being returned didn't pass Steve's climate audit and he called it out. One station (“Harry”) had been buried under snow for several years which led to recent temperatures being returned warmer than previous years. Other stations had been moved to warmer locations without the data being adjusted. This was a pretty normal find for ClimateAudit. But apparently Gavin Schmidt (of NASA) decided to take credit for this find. OK, a bit of plagiarism. It happens.

“Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre” - Roger Pielke, Jr., Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado on his Prometheus blog

But then things got sticky. Apparently Gavin (remember, he's a NASA employee) decided to contact Roger Pielke's employers (the director of CIRES and the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado) and demanded that Roger remove his Prometheus blog entry about the apparent scientific plagiarism. Can you say “coercion”? How about “abuse of power”? Gavin didn't even contact Roger Pielke (apparently Roger is also one of Gavin's arch enemies. This man must hate everyone!), he just went straight to Roger's employers and tried to have him censored. That's right, government censorship the old fashioned way – quiet threats to one's superiors.

All of this made even more interesting by the fact that Gavin works for the same NASA office as the notorious James Hansen. The same James Hansen that often made claims that the Bush administration was trying to have him muzzled. The same James Hansen that said Oil Executives should be tried for crimes against humanity. The same James Hansen that received $720,000 from the Soros Foundation for legal fees to fight official at NASA who he thought were trying to rein him in.

The same James Hansen who's former supervisor, Dr. John S. Theon, now says that James Hansen “embarrassed NASA with his alarming climate claims” who “was never muzzled” and who's computer models were “useless”!

“Theon declared “climate models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.” - Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen

Now we have a government employee at the same (apparently) out of control office trying to coerce University officials in to censoring someone that he disagrees with. Shameful.

Ragnar Danneskjöld – Pirating for Freedom

[TheServant]

Re: Cap and Trade

I am not a climatologist either, but I do have some added insight to the subject as a meteorologist.

Here are two simplistic graphs, similar to yours, from the late 90s, that I find a bit easier to read. I hope they turn out. This is my first post with images.






To me, the most telling comparison of the different time frames is that of our current "warm" period to the Holocene Maximum (or Climatic Optimum).
In essence, we spent 4 or 5 millennia at or above our current ~100 years of warming. It points out how insignificant our current period of warming is at this point, at least relative to the past 10 thousand years.

Another important aspect to remember is that "climate change" is not some new phenomenon. This seems like a bit of an insulting statement to make, but I have talked to quite a number of people that just don't understand that "change" is inherent to the earth's climatic system. It has been and always will be.

Has humankind been a part of these changes? Of course it has. We are a part of this carbon-based ecosystem.

Is our influence greater in the past century or two? Of course it is. There are over 6 billion of us now and we burn a lot more stuff now.

Is our influence dominant over other sources of change? Judging from the graphs going back into the last Ice Age, probably not. "Mother nature" has done quite a good job swinging temperatures back and forth far more wildly many times in the past, even within the context of this current Interglacial period of the past 15 thousand years +/- 2000 years.

Some Cliff's notes points to be taken from these charts, and others you come across.

1) They are pieced together using estimates derived from 10 or more different techniques used to approximate past temperature profiles. You are truly comparing apples to oranges, and probably grapes to watermelons are times.

2) The current margin of error in our most advanced thermometers is still (+/- 1 degree F), and I guarantee that the margin of error when trying to piece together all the "measured" readings the past century alone are likely greater than that, due both to instrument and geographical changes made at reporting sites over the decades.

3) Most importantly, in my opinion, is that it is impossible to make a valid argument with 100 years of data when looking at such large time frames. Even in the past 10 thousand years, which pretty much encompasses the modern era, any 100 year trend can be seen as little more than noise.

Personally, I believe the current move to attempt to make a transition to other more effective fuels is much needed in the long run (next century? next millennium?). We are really limited as a species if we continue to rely on dead animals and plants to run our inner workings.

Certainly for the United States, it is vital, since we import a majority of our oil, much of it from hostile countries. Our country could cease to exist in its current form with the mere stroke of the pen, if certain countries decided to ally against us.

In my opinion, this is why "global warming" is becoming the poster child for the budding green movement. It seems much less alarming to approach our current predicament of "oil-dependence" using a more surreal sort of threat.

You don't want to go out in the streets and scream, we need a new energy source now! If China ends up allying with the Middle East/South America in a resource war, we are toast!

One last note. As a meteorologist within .gov, I have seen the internal political shift with regards to this subject over the course of the past decade.

Our "suggested" talking points when answering public inquires have gone from a neutral stance in the late 90s "global warming is probably real, but the debate continues", to "global warming is likely real, but it is difficult to say how much is man made", to "global warming is undeniable as is the fact that mankind is the primary culprit". This last shift occurred in the past two weeks, after the official US government report was released in mid June. As the political-speak goes, we are now highly encourage to take this stance while responding to public inquires.

Thanks for letting me ramble. I will try to keep closer to topic in regards to the effectiveness of "cap and trade"...etc...in the future.

[TheServant]

Re: Cap and Trade

Well, the images didn't post. Oh well, Munger's are prettier anyway.

[Guinnesstime]

Re: Cap and Trade

So now that it has passed in the House how likely is it to pass in the Senate? I have been told that will be harder for it to go through in the Senate.:confused: