What we should be discussing are the issues that really concern thinking Americans: how many mistresses did Tiger Woods really have?; did the couple who went to the White House party have genuine invites or not?; and so on and so forth. Let’s not get so bogged down in trivial issues like health care, Afghanistan, etc.
Global Warming Blog – Atlantic Heat Engine (Two take aways: 1) Now that we can simply dismiss the CO2 hypothesis as a climate driver, we must resolve the outstanding issue of the transfer of heat into the Arctic in particular. … 2) As an aside, the ocean controls the climate rather than the climate controlling the ocean. It makes atmospheric issues a likely sideshow at best whose effect is at best modest and usually immeasurable.)
When I click on the comments link for a paticular posy I don’t get comments. I get teh post blown up (or full length) and have to click again on he comments link. Is there a 1-click way to get to the comments?
Not yet. Js kit people say it is a part of the blogger set up, but then why my template. It is annoying…so far no luck except I have not crashed the site in the fixing.
I am not trying to pick a fight. Not today and not here. In fact I will be leaving the house shortly and have no plans on checking back on this comment thread, so treat this as a rhetorical but real question.
Why should anyone follow a blind link without any idea what the linker thought was interesting about it? Is the data against expectations or counter-intuitive or perhaps confirming some thesis of yours or of someone else? Does it make Roubini look like a genius and Setser an idiot? Or both of them geniuses and everybody else an idiot? Or vice versa? Is it final proof that Krugman really IS shrill?
There are millions of pieces of new information I can track down today and billions to trillions of pieces of old information that I can examine and if necessary incorporate into my own worldview. Or maybe I’ll just grab a sandwich and a beer and read the funny papers. Or I guess I could follow a blind link and try to divine what about it is supposed to be important.
If you are directing me to a dirty joke or a funny picture then ‘check this out’ is at some level appropriate, either I will appreciate it or not. But I am not thinking that an unmediated data dump makes that grade. Exactly what about this link makes it more important than checking out the DAX index or examining FOREX trading numbers for that same month? Not that I would normally follow either.
I swear you could give the Sphinx lessons in being cryptic.
Why are you participating on an econ blog if you don’t know what an ISM report is? These are the two latest summary reports. Titles are self-explanatory.
There is a lot of good news coming out of climate-gate:
1) There is almost certainly no global warming caused by man-made CO2, therefore there is no need for expensive political/economic mitigation policies.
2) The internet has proved an equalizer to the high priests. We need not be their dupes. As Jon Stewart said “Poor Al Gore, debunked by the very internet he created. Oh the IRONY.”
Let’s see, they’ve tried 1) Global Cooling! 2)Global Warming! now it’s 3)Health Care Crisis!….. People just have to keep going to the ramparts as freedom is a hard thing to keep.
I’m a bit perplexed. Why is it that discussions of the possibility of climate change seem to have adherents that can be divided along partisan lines? When did climate science take on a political ideology? it seems odd that most of those, on this blog, who discredit the arguments supporting the concept of global climate change are the same voices that profess a hard to the right ideological argument on all political and social issues. That’s just an observation. I’m not saying one or another side of the argument is correct. I’m only noting that even a subject as apolitical as climotolgy seems to end up with partisan adherents.
One needs to split the Climate change issue into 2 parts (which is not done and the two parts get mixed up and homogenized) 1 The possible effects, 2 what to do about it. The issue is to come clean and for the sake of arguement assume the predicted effects, then what should one do about it. 3 possiblities exist 1 do nothing it won’t be so bad and/or let those who may be affected take care of it, 2 Start fixing it now, 3 a modification of 1 we can’t do anything about it so why try enjoy life while you can. Note that one has jumped from Climate Science to economics and morality with the what to do arguement. If one holds we owe the future nothing, then what to do is nothing. It most commentors seem to regard the let the future take care of itself as unethical, but I have not seen a good discussion. Note that the scientists have no better input in the what to do about it than anyone else.
Jack, I am fighting an urge to be flippant, but from the very beginning climate as an issue has been politicized. One of the earliest adherents was a one world Government type. So, the exaggerations started early on. And it is the exaggerated/catastrophic predicitions that cause many conservatives to cringe. Moreover, many of us are older, and remember the Climate Scare of the 70s where they used the same arguments. Never happened!
If it didn’t happen then, what’s the evidence it will happen now?
Let me ask this question. High tides cause as much or more damage and probably directly take more lives than temperatures. So why are we not trying to control the tides?
High tides have a similar stellar cause. They are exacerbated by wind and sea currents. They are enhanced by storms. So what is the scientific approach to controlling these extremely dangerous high tides?
Lyle, the problem you define: “One needs to split the Climate change issue…” is too broad. If you mean rising temperatures, the we need to define the causes of why they are rising. If you mean the impact of manmade CO2 (ACO2), then we need to better define how it actually effects climate (or did you mean rising temps.) If you mean man’s effect on climate then we need to break that issue into the many components of climate and detemind how man is causing that change.
Now, the bottom line, what has never yet been defined is HOW MUCH OF THE EFFECT OF ANY OF THOSE ISSUES ABOVE CAN BE DIRECTLY TRACED TO MAN? Once we know that we can do the splitting and prioritizing needed to reduce our impacts.
If the problem were so simple that controlling our output of a trace gas, ACO2, with the answers re: how much effect can be attributed to it, then a reasonable solution could be defined.
I refer you to the chart in my 4:29 comment. Can someone tell us how that apparent correlation is effected by ACO2?
Simple solutions for simple problems. Let’s get to defining the problem down to its simple components.
What I meant was for the sake of arguement assume it is true, then think about what to do about it. I am fishing for people to clearly state what they think we owe the future, for that is the big issue. Apparently everone thinks we owe the future something, since there is so much worry about the science. If we owe the future nothing then who cares what will happen. (All be it this is very age dependent, if you are 75 there is a different view than 25 of what the future is)
After these positions are explicated then we can go back to the question of what is the downside of each option to take care of climate change in the environment of it being wrong.
i have made the same point as Bruce with respect to other comments/posts that invite me to link without offering any compelling reason. Life is too short.
it’s also worth noting that the people who say oh god we cannot adapt to climate change are the same ones always touting the genius of free enterprise to adapt…
it is interesting that you would regard “what do we owe the future” as a valid question. no children i take it. no “family of man” instinct. no concern for the handiwork of God?
it’s okay if you don’t, i guess, but 3 million years of your ancestors certainly wasted their time.
Lyle, basically you are stating the precautionary principle. Using that to justify anything makes the responsibility yours for providing evidence. Starting with a hypothetical assumption just opens you to a counter hypthetical.
Therefore, assuming that the increase in temps are primarily natural with a very, very small anthropogenic component, AND changing that anthro-component can have deleterious affects on mankind; the why and or what should we do anything to lower our impacts?
Yes, I do beleive my assumption is more likely than yours. Neither are likely to be 100% true.
Dale, have you seen the findings from one of the latest studies on the affects of increased CO2 in the planet’s oceans? Many shelled critters are increasing their shell thickness. Not decreasing them.
What we owe the future also determines the discount rate to be applied to future costs or investments. Values suggested range from 5% per annum down. In doing economics about climate change this value determines how much an event in the future costs today. The answer is more than yes no, it becomes a quantitive issue.Note that taking 5% versus 2% , 5% says divide costs 100 years from now by 131, 2% says divide by 7.2. So if Climate change will cost 5 trillion in 2109 the net present value varies from 38 billion at 5% to 694 billion at 2%. Now what actions are economically justified clearly depend on which of the two numbers you worry about. 38 billion a year is managable world wide at about 1/1000 of world gdp, while 694 is much bigger at around 1 to 1.5% of world gdp. It is these numbers that suggest how much could be spent on mitigation.
Of course science is about building models of the world. Amost always the model includes simplifications in third or fourth order terms do make the math tractable, sometimes you simplify in the second order as well. Having science degrees but having spent a career in business, I guess I like to see business cases (got that drumed into me over and over you have an idea and the question becomes where is your business case, or how can we make money on that?) Interestingly if you break the mitigation steps down a number clearly make economic sense and others have more problems, for example a lot of conservation measures make sense.
Lyle, I completely agree. I guess that’s why I object to the atomic bomb solution (lowering ACO2) versus a very targeted response, planting some vegetation regions in vegetation deprived areas. Recovering mined areas is an example of this approach. Or, how about building more Nuke power plants?
The recent past has shown a reduction in the creation of ACO2, but that reduction has come because of a huge economic downturn. Reversing the cause and effect is certainly a huge possibility if not a near certainty. So where is that ole business case?
Lyle, I completely agree. I guess that’s why I object to the atomic bomb solution (lowering ACO2) versus a very targeted response, planting some vegetation in vegetation deprived areas. Recovering mined areas is an example of this approach. Or, how about building more Nuke power plants?
The recent past has shown a reduction in the creation of ACO2, but that reduction has come because of a huge economic downturn. Reversing the cause and effect is certainly a huge possibility if not a near certainty. So where is that ole business case?
is there a way we could talk rationally about this?
what we need to adapt to is the changes in our way of doing business that would stop global warming. we cannot adapt to a temperature regime not seen since the Carboniferous.
this is insane. do you really think either that “it’s all about money” or that you know enough about money to weigh the values that will matter a hundred years from now?
Dale, I doubt it. We are just too diametrically opposed in views. I am a climate skeptic that with the latest is verging on becoming a climate cynic. I look at much of the latest materials everyday, and you refuse to look at any links and then snipe about it. You claim to have been convinced by reading a few books several years ago, and refuse to admit that the science has changed. Yes, that does go for your understanding of the physics associated with HOW the GHGs work.
And then we have Climategate that shows that much of the seminal work for the past two decades is not only flawed but may even be rigged. Flawed is science. Rigging the data is not!
We have seen only one side of the Climate Change story for the past decade+.
So, if you want to “ talk rationally about this? ” There is a start.
Dale, here is another quote for you splainin why we probably will not have a “rational” discussion: “The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.
Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.”
Emphasis is mine. I deliberately did not include the link.
Lyle, basically you are stating the precautionary principle. No, that’s not what he’s talking about. And you frequently confuse the precautionary principle with the asymmetric principle. They are different. Lyle is talking about social opportunity costs adjusted for regret costs. Old voters today should not be making decisions about global warming because it is a corruption of the representative agent model, and this skews regret costs. http://www.nber.org/papers/w7983
I vaguely remember someone this blog telling us he built a very simple model to prove/that proved that CO2 increases preceeded warming periods.
Then you are misremembering. What I said was that historically CO2 concentrations tend to follow temperature increases by about 800 years. This is what the paleoclimatic record shows. But that is not what is happening now. Over the last 150 years CO2 concentrations started to lead temperature increases. The model was a simple toy VAR. The VAR approach simply looks at impulse/responses of shocks (called “innovations” in the literature). A VAR model does not a priori decide that one variable is endogenous and the other exogenous. A VAR model allows both variables to feedback upon the other; i.e., both are regarded as endogenous.
2slugs, let me refer you to my 4:29 comment from yesterday. Tell us again how that ole CO2 correlates to those cooling periods. It leads does it not? Oh, it leads the warming periods too. Umh, if it leads both then clearly CO2 and especially ACO2 are the cause for all things temp. Oops, we forgot that big ole ball in the sky. And, did you miss the pretty colored sections in that graph?
BTW, if you had done the correlogram exercise that I recommended, and if you knew a few things about time series analysis, then the explanation would be apparent. Imposing stationarity on the temp data and removing autocorrelations results in a time series model with complex characteristic roots (i.e., imaginary numbers). Anytime you have complex characteristic roots in a time series model means that you will also get a sinusoidal, wavelike representation in the data. The reason is De Moivre’s theorem:
GISS, 90-95% overlap with CRU. Has been shown to have siting problems (Anthony Watts) has been show to be dropping cooler, rural stations for warmer urban stations (exacerbating the siting problems), and poor processing of Urban heat island effect (also exacerbated by siting and site drop issues.) Yup, great choice.
I presume you took the CO2 data from Moana Loa? Or did you use some other global averaged source? I also presume you resolved them for periodicity, grid equality, etc.? Or did you use the annual averages, which buries all those lead/lag periods.
Regardless even again, your model shows nothing that wasn’t already known. CO2 and ACO2 are rising;however, it does not correlate with the temps, which varies up and down but only somewhat regularly.
GISS? Perhaps even worse than CRU. It is 90-95% overlapping with CRU source data. When you say the physics, the physics of what? Just what theory are you convinced about?
You have been seeing only part of the AGW story. You are still making decisions on only that part you have been shown. Not the whole of the science.
So with this statement you are claiming the correlations are artifacts of the math? All of this from looking at a graph. I know you did not go to the raw data, the author’s report nor did you review the author’s methods. That’s a sure sign of a desperate need to believe (or disbelieve your eyes.)
BTW, thanks for the report. I hadn’t read that in over a year. I much preferred Crichton’s. He was a much more entertaining writer. IIRC he died before he could respond.
2slugs, said: ““big ole ball in the sky” is radiating more energy than scientists have accounted for to date?” I never said it was radiating more. How did you get that from my little comment?
Why continue to argue with yourself? You are all over the place in your comments. It appears you just want a verbal jousting match. Why not talk about Climategate? Or at least pick one of the AGW theories?
2Slugbaits you said it well. Another way to ask is assume I could sell you an insurance policy that mitigated climate change, what premium would you pay? (making the question one can ask today and one that in other contexts people answer all the time). We do no the end conditions, if the cost was mininimal one would likley buy but there is a price at which one would not. By putting it to an insurance question it admits of uncertanty of the valididty of the results but does say the probability is greater than zero. Asking what premium one would pay combines the estimate of the risk, with an estimate of what one would pay to offset the risk.
The more I think about it this is the way the question should be put, since we will never be 100% sure that the scientists are right. Insurance is the human activity that attempts to quantify risks that may or may not happen (or risks we know will happen but not when such as life insurance it will payoff just don’t know when). Of course insurance is a legalized form of gambling life insurance is a bet you hope to loose, because you bet the insurance company you will die sooner than the mortality tables say, and the insurance company bets the other side. Most people would clearly want to loose the bet, but make it to mitigate the consequeces of dieing early.
Having an earth science background (geophysics) I look at the record and see that higher CO2 concentrations in the geologic past were correlated with warmer temps for example before the ice ages. This of course does not prove causation, but there were correlations. The correlations mean that one has to conceed that the climate change folks may be right (not necessarily are right) so thats what leads me to say lets look at the what the cost to insure against the changes would be. Insurance is designed to protect against things that may or may not happen, so it is a good model. The question then boils down to what premium would you pay to protect against the predicted changes. Obviously there are two componets of premium, 1 the chance that something will happen, and 2 the intensity of what happens, in this case we will ignore potential investment returns etc. to make the model more simple. To folks who complain about making it all about money, what other criteria can one use? Economics allows an objectivity on the evaluation, other ways make the decision subjective, and therefore your subjective decision will likley be different than mine (the comment about kids being a perfect example as well as how old you are, and possibly where you live, all of which affect the subjective decision in inconsistent ways.
The NIST paper is more of a conventional regression type approach and tries to establish more of a causal or structural relationship. The correlegram is a simple time series tool that gives you insights into the decay patterns of the residuals. Think of correlograms as a kind of diagnostic tool. Remember what Menzie Chinn told you about the nonstationarity of the temperature anomalies. A “shock” effect was very slow to decay. If you need a higher order autoregressive model with complex characteristic roots in order to make the univariate series stationary, then you can be pretty sure that there will be a sinusoidal decay pattern. The point is that even a simple approach used for diagnostic purposes would have told you that there was a wavelike pattern of decay. That’s what you would have found using only temperature data; i.e., in univariate time series model.
The VAR approach takes two different time series and expresses each in terms of lags of both variables. It does not predetermine which variable is exogenous and which is endogenous; it treats both as endogenous and explicitly accounts for feedback effects. The trick in VAR models is to disentangle the intuitive meaning of the “error” terms because when you estimate a simple VAR you set things up in what is known as reduced form; i.e., each variable is expressed as a lag of itself or lags of other endogenous terms. This means that the error terms are really composites because it includes the effects of both lagged variables. BTW, figuring out how to reintroduce intuitive “structural” meaning into the error terms from VAR models is one of the things that made Ben Bernanke famous (1986). One of the outputs from a VAR is something called impulse/response charts, which show the persistence of a shock of variable A on variable B. The toy VAR showed that CO2 shocks had a statistically significant and long lived effect on temperature, but temperature did not have a similar effect on CO2 if you look at data over the last 150 years. This tells us that the paleoclimatic record of CO2 lagging temperature change may represent the “natural” course of events, but it does not describe what’s happening now.
The NIST paper was not a univariate time series model. The NIST paper was more of an old fashioned structural model and assumed that CO2 emissions were exogenous factors that had a contemporaneous effect on temperature (i.e., it used “t” rather than “t-1”) and it found that even after accounting for the sinusoidal patterns of the ocean, there was still an overall upward trend in temperature and that CO2 emissions were a statistically significant parameter in explaining temperature anomalies. After each sinusoidal cycle the baseline was reset to a higher temperature level. The assumption of a contemporaneous and exgenous effect of CO2 on temps is a strong assumption, but one that the VAR results more or less support.
Lyle, the basic premise is falling apart as we write. So insurance for the sky falling is for what purpose?
As Dr Roy Spencer questions, if the data and temp processing how and when will there be an investigation into the models. They are know to be unverified and unvalidated, huge NO! Nos! in modeling. So, why would anyone have any faith in their predictions?
BTW, if CO2 lags temp increases, geologically, then what are you trying to change?
You seem to be pretty confident that the revised Met Office calculations will be materially different. If the Met Office operates like any govt office that I’ve ever worked in, the Met already knows the likely results of the new calculation. Bureaucracies don’t make that kind of announcement that quickly and that aggressively (note they are going against the wishes of the rest of the govt) unless they already know the answer. I think you’re being played here.
Then please explain what you meant by your comment forgetting about the “big ole ball in the sky.” You’re the one who dropped the phrase. Explain what you meant if you were not referring to the sun’s energy received by the earth.
I’m being played? We all have been played! Dunno what material difference will come out, but there is one big winner. Us! When we can begin to trust the temp data, then we can begin to plan any needed changes. Until then why spend Billions or even trillions? At the least it will diminish the catastrophic predictions to noise level. Who is going to believe them except the religious fanatics?
The big change will be the acceptance of some of the alternative theories. Miskolczi’s is one that needs some work, but actually is more plausible, and more thoroughly explains temp changes than the CO2/feedback theory.
So, I believe we are about to accept alternative 1) Do nothing for at least three years.
Three more years of research in an open environment, with the review of already presented hypotheses in that open environment is a good thing. Don’t you agree?
Last spring I gave some graduate and faculty seminars to the folks at UAH and Redstone Arsenal. The topic was advanced time series analysis. I also had a nice (but ridiculously expensive) dinner with Dr. Spencer’s colleagues. Too bad Dr. Spencer didn’t attend the dinner, the lectures or the seminars.
Historically CO2 has lagged temperature increases, indicating some kind of complex natural relationship. The disturbing point is that over the last 150 years that pattern has reversed and now temperature change lags CO2. Are you going to try and tell us that this reversal is not manmade?
Once again you are all over the ballpark on temperature change. One week you agree that temperatures are increasing, then the next week you say that the data is all corrupt crap, so there’s no need to worry about buying an insurance policy. Well, if you believe there’s no need to buy an insurance policy, then presumably this week you also believe that not only is the temperature data corrupt crap, but that the correct temperature data would show no increase. Which is it? Pick a story and stick with it from one week to the next. You either agree with GISS and CRU and NOAA that temperatures are increasing or you don’t.
2slugs said: “ Are you going to try and tell us that this reversal is not manmade? ” Maybe, depends on how true the Knorr study may be. In it his findings are that the percentages of CO2 and ACO2 in the atmosphere are stable. He concludes that the natural sinks still are working well, but it also says that the CO2 increase is not totally due to manmade causes.
I have made my understanding of CC known here for many months now. I tryuly can not define yours other thanto have a verbal jousting exercise.
Never have I claimed that there was NO anthropogenic component. Nor have I denied that the temps are rising.
But, I have consistently said that the temps appear to be well within the normal range of natural variability, and that we have yet to define and measure the man influenced components of CC/temp increases.
You, OTH, appear to be anxious to take nearly any view, as long as it supports the pro-AGW position, or that of your immediate position. You have gone so far as to use your own techniques to reinforce your belief(s).
I will repeat: you have been shown only on side of the argument. You are making judgements from that restricted viewpoint. Furthermore, you are still defending yours and the pro-AGW view points ad nauseum. After being called a denier, on this very blog, I can actually use that term for you, and the handfull of those still pointlessly defending the pro-AGW extremist/catastrophic positions.
2slugs, why not go over to Bob Tisdale’ blog: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/ and discuss your understanding with him? Using me as a proxy is as bad as using the Yamal magic tree to define world temps.
As far as the sinusoidal (which I think is perhaps an inaccurate term) you said: “…there was still an overall upward trend in temperature and that CO2 emissions were a statistically significant parameter in explaining temperature anomalies” Stistically significant, IF AND ONL IF, you beleive that it is there is a causal relationship, AND that relationship exceeds that of all others causes. Limiting the variables shows us what about causation? You might as well be comparing CO2 to the price of eggs in China. There is a relationship, but to select those two variables you must first believe that CO2 is the primary (or at least major) causation for Chinese egg price changes.
reviewing a NIST paper against a Hollywood personality’s paper(s) is interewting but not very scientific. As I said, Crichton was the better writer. Not sure who was the better scientist It doesn’t matter.
Well Guest you provided your vote on the issue of the premium you would be willing to pay, 0 Which is fine. I assume this is because you think there is no chance whatsoever that CC is real?
Lyle, I think I was posting as Guest, so I assume the comment is for me. Let me be perfectly clear. Yes, there is an increase in Global temps. Yes, some of it is due to increases in CO2 (note I did not say ACO2.) No, the catastrophic predictions are not likely to occur. No, we do not know how much of the warming is from anthro-sources. We have only conjecture based upon the models which will be the next big Climate issue as they have shown zero predictive capability. No, we do not know how much of the warming is due to ACO2. We have only conjecture based upon the models which will be the next big Climate issue as they have shown zero predictive capability. Every indication is that the temp increases are well within natural variability, and a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.
So, my belief is that your insurance idea may just as well be against the Moon falling out of orbit. Could it happen? Will it happen? Yes in both instances, but not while we are still on this planet.
Finally, when you cite things like CC, please be specific. Are you talking about Global Warming? Are you talking about the catastrophic predictions due to…? If you are using the generic meaning for CC, then of course it is changing. Change is what defines climate.
2slugs, I was talking about sources for temp increases. Read these two sentences with that in mind: “Umh, if it leads both then clearly CO2 and especially ACO2 are the cause for all things temp. Oops, we forgot that big ole ball in the sky.” Some estmates are that 99+% of the planet’s heat is from the Sun. I can not confirm that estimate. Geothemal is miniscule when it reaches the surface.
Now, with that in mind if you wish to discuss the impact of a very slight (fractional) change in TSI, then that might get interesting.
What we should be discussing are the issues that really concern thinking Americans: how many mistresses did Tiger Woods really have?; did the couple who went to the White House party have genuine invites or not?; and so on and so forth. Let’s not get so bogged down in trivial issues like health care, Afghanistan, etc.
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Global Warming Blog – Atlantic Heat Engine (Two take aways: 1) Now that we can simply dismiss the CO2 hypothesis as a climate driver, we must resolve the outstanding issue of the transfer of heat into the Arctic in particular. … 2) As an aside, the ocean controls the climate rather than the climate controlling the ocean. It makes atmospheric issues a likely sideshow at best whose effect is at best modest and usually immeasurable.)
Saw this today.
Rdan,
When I click on the comments link for a paticular posy I don’t get comments. I get teh post blown up (or full length) and have to click again on he comments link. Is there a 1-click way to get to the comments?
Thanks
Buff,
Not yet. Js kit people say it is a part of the blogger set up, but then why my template. It is annoying…so far no luck except I have not crashed the site in the fixing.
Check this out:
November 2009 Non-Manufacturing ISM Report on Business
http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/NonMfgROB.cfm?navItemNumber=12943
November 2009 Manufacturing ISM Report On Business
http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/MfgROB.cfm?navItemNumber=12942
Here’s the latest on Woods who has made peace with his wife:
Why?
I am not trying to pick a fight. Not today and not here. In fact I will be leaving the house shortly and have no plans on checking back on this comment thread, so treat this as a rhetorical but real question.
Why should anyone follow a blind link without any idea what the linker thought was interesting about it? Is the data against expectations or counter-intuitive or perhaps confirming some thesis of yours or of someone else? Does it make Roubini look like a genius and Setser an idiot? Or both of them geniuses and everybody else an idiot? Or vice versa? Is it final proof that Krugman really IS shrill?
There are millions of pieces of new information I can track down today and billions to trillions of pieces of old information that I can examine and if necessary incorporate into my own worldview. Or maybe I’ll just grab a sandwich and a beer and read the funny papers. Or I guess I could follow a blind link and try to divine what about it is supposed to be important.
If you are directing me to a dirty joke or a funny picture then ‘check this out’ is at some level appropriate, either I will appreciate it or not. But I am not thinking that an unmediated data dump makes that grade. Exactly what about this link makes it more important than checking out the DAX index or examining FOREX trading numbers for that same month? Not that I would normally follow either.
I swear you could give the Sphinx lessons in being cryptic.
Bruce,
Why are you participating on an econ blog if you don’t know what an ISM report is? These are the two latest summary reports. Titles are self-explanatory.
I think Bruce wants you to write an executive summary so he can decide if its worth his time to follow and read the link.
This was also in today’s GW finds:
One of my favorite blog names: The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE, has an article describing how little has changed since 1974. He also puts a stake into the heart that the 70s cooling crisis was only supported by a handful of climatologists and not a wide spread consensus. It is here: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/world-exclusive-cia-1974-document-reveals-emptiness-of-agw-scares-closes-debate-on-global-cooling-consensus-and-more
corev,
There is a lot of good news coming out of climate-gate:
1) There is almost certainly no global warming caused by man-made CO2, therefore there is no need for expensive political/economic mitigation policies.
2) The internet has proved an equalizer to the high priests. We need not be their dupes. As Jon Stewart said “Poor Al Gore, debunked by the very internet he created. Oh the IRONY.”
Don’t worry they will utimately figure another scheme to fulfill their political agenda.
Just for 2slugs and coberly.
Sammy, Big Al cancelled his Copenhagen show leaving ~3,000 ticket holders in the ?cold? Doesn’t look good for Cop15.
jimi,
Let’s see, they’ve tried 1) Global Cooling! 2)Global Warming! now it’s 3)Health Care Crisis!….. People just have to keep going to the ramparts as freedom is a hard thing to keep.
I’m a bit perplexed. Why is it that discussions of the possibility of climate change seem to have adherents that can be divided along partisan lines? When did climate science take on a political ideology? it seems odd that most of those, on this blog, who discredit the arguments supporting the concept of global climate change are the same voices that profess a hard to the right ideological argument on all political and social issues. That’s just an observation. I’m not saying one or another side of the argument is correct. I’m only noting that even a subject as apolitical as climotolgy seems to end up with partisan adherents.
One needs to split the Climate change issue into 2 parts (which is not done and the two parts get mixed up and homogenized) 1 The possible effects, 2 what to do about it. The issue is to come clean and for the sake of arguement assume the predicted effects, then what should one do about it. 3 possiblities exist 1 do nothing it won’t be so bad and/or let those who may be affected take care of it, 2 Start fixing it now, 3 a modification of 1 we can’t do anything about it so why try enjoy life while you can.
Note that one has jumped from Climate Science to economics and morality with the what to do arguement. If one holds we owe the future nothing, then what to do is nothing. It most commentors seem to regard the let the future take care of itself as unethical, but I have not seen a good discussion. Note that the scientists have no better input in the what to do about it than anyone else.
Jack, I am fighting an urge to be flippant, but from the very beginning climate as an issue has been politicized. One of the earliest adherents was a one world Government type. So, the exaggerations started early on. And it is the exaggerated/catastrophic predicitions that cause many conservatives to cringe. Moreover, many of us are older, and remember the Climate Scare of the 70s where they used the same arguments. Never happened!
If it didn’t happen then, what’s the evidence it will happen now?
Let me ask this question. High tides cause as much or more damage and probably directly take more lives than temperatures. So why are we not trying to control the tides?
High tides have a similar stellar cause. They are exacerbated by wind and sea currents. They are enhanced by storms. So what is the scientific approach to controlling these extremely dangerous high tides?
Lyle, the problem you define: “One needs to split the Climate change issue…” is too broad. If you mean rising temperatures, the we need to define the causes of why they are rising. If you mean the impact of manmade CO2 (ACO2), then we need to better define how it actually effects climate (or did you mean rising temps.) If you mean man’s effect on climate then we need to break that issue into the many components of climate and detemind how man is causing that change.
Now, the bottom line, what has never yet been defined is HOW MUCH OF THE EFFECT OF ANY OF THOSE ISSUES ABOVE CAN BE DIRECTLY TRACED TO MAN? Once we know that we can do the splitting and prioritizing needed to reduce our impacts.
If the problem were so simple that controlling our output of a trace gas, ACO2, with the answers re: how much effect can be attributed to it, then a reasonable solution could be defined.
I refer you to the chart in my 4:29 comment. Can someone tell us how that apparent correlation is effected by ACO2?
Simple solutions for simple problems. Let’s get to defining the problem down to its simple components.
What I meant was for the sake of arguement assume it is true, then think about what to do about it. I am fishing for people to clearly state what they think we owe the future, for that is the big issue. Apparently everone thinks we owe the future something, since there is so much worry about the science. If we owe the future nothing then who cares what will happen. (All be it this is very age dependent, if you are 75 there is a different view than 25 of what the future is)
After these positions are explicated then we can go back to the question of what is the downside of each option to take care of climate change in the environment of it being wrong.
CoRev,
Beware of eyeball analysis. Just for yucks you might want to generate a correlogram against the data.
Recall that Menzie Chinn found that the data had a unit root.
2slugs, if there is any information coming out of Climategate, it is do not trust the data. So why trust an economist’s view of the same data.
I vaguely remember someone this blog telling us he built a very simple model to prove/that proved that CO2 increases preceeded warming periods.
Fascinating when one takes the model ouputs over the actual physical data. Seems to be endemic in the climate science discusssions.
Cantab
i have made the same point as Bruce with respect to other comments/posts that invite me to link without offering any compelling reason. Life is too short.
jack
it’s also worth noting that the people who say oh god we cannot adapt to climate change are the same ones always touting the genius of free enterprise to adapt…
Lyle
it is interesting that you would regard “what do we owe the future” as a valid question. no children i take it. no “family of man” instinct. no concern for the handiwork of God?
it’s okay if you don’t, i guess, but 3 million years of your ancestors certainly wasted their time.
Dale, as I remember, it was your implied position that we could not adapt.
Lyle, basically you are stating the precautionary principle. Using that to justify anything makes the responsibility yours for providing evidence. Starting with a hypothetical assumption just opens you to a counter hypthetical.
Therefore, assuming that the increase in temps are primarily natural with a very, very small anthropogenic component, AND changing that anthro-component can have deleterious affects on mankind; the why and or what should we do anything to lower our impacts?
Yes, I do beleive my assumption is more likely than yours. Neither are likely to be 100% true.
Dale, have you seen the findings from one of the latest studies on the affects of increased CO2 in the planet’s oceans? Many shelled critters are increasing their shell thickness. Not decreasing them.
What we owe the future also determines the discount rate to be applied to future costs or investments. Values suggested range from 5% per annum down. In doing economics about climate change this value determines how much an event in the future costs today. The answer is more than yes no, it becomes a quantitive issue.Note that taking 5% versus 2% , 5% says divide costs 100 years from now by 131, 2% says divide by 7.2. So if Climate change will cost 5 trillion in 2109 the net present value varies from 38 billion at 5% to 694 billion at 2%. Now what actions are economically justified clearly depend on which of the two numbers you worry about. 38 billion a year is managable world wide at about 1/1000 of world gdp, while 694 is much bigger at around 1 to 1.5% of world gdp. It is these numbers that suggest how much could be spent on mitigation.
Of course science is about building models of the world. Amost always the model includes simplifications in third or fourth order terms do make the math tractable, sometimes you simplify in the second order as well.
Having science degrees but having spent a career in business, I guess I like to see business cases (got that drumed into me over and over you have an idea and the question becomes where is your business case, or how can we make money on that?) Interestingly if you break the mitigation steps down a number clearly make economic sense and others have more problems, for example a lot of conservation measures make sense.
Lyle, I completely agree. I guess that’s why I object to the atomic bomb solution (lowering ACO2) versus a very targeted response, planting some vegetation regions in vegetation deprived areas. Recovering mined areas is an example of this approach. Or, how about building more Nuke power plants?
The recent past has shown a reduction in the creation of ACO2, but that reduction has come because of a huge economic downturn. Reversing the cause and effect is certainly a huge possibility if not a near certainty. So where is that ole business case?
Lyle, I completely agree. I guess that’s why I object to the atomic bomb solution (lowering ACO2) versus a very targeted response, planting some vegetation in vegetation deprived areas. Recovering mined areas is an example of this approach. Or, how about building more Nuke power plants?
The recent past has shown a reduction in the creation of ACO2, but that reduction has come because of a huge economic downturn. Reversing the cause and effect is certainly a huge possibility if not a near certainty. So where is that ole business case?
CoRev
is there a way we could talk rationally about this?
what we need to adapt to is the changes in our way of doing business that would stop global warming. we cannot adapt to a temperature regime not seen since the Carboniferous.
CoRev
first, i have learned to be very suspicious of “latest findings” especially from your favorite sources.
but if those critters are adapting, so much the better… for them. doesn’t mean we are going to like all the adaptations that come.
Lyle
this is insane. do you really think either that “it’s all about money” or that you know enough about money to weigh the values that will matter a hundred years from now?
Dale, I doubt it. We are just too diametrically opposed in views. I am a climate skeptic that with the latest is verging on becoming a climate cynic. I look at much of the latest materials everyday, and you refuse to look at any links and then snipe about it. You claim to have been convinced by reading a few books several years ago, and refuse to admit that the science has changed. Yes, that does go for your understanding of the physics associated with HOW the GHGs work.
And then we have Climategate that shows that much of the seminal work for the past two decades is not only flawed but may even be rigged. Flawed is science. Rigging the data is not!
We have seen only one side of the Climate Change story for the past decade+.
So, if you want to “ talk rationally about this? ” There is a start.
Dale, here is another quote for you splainin why we probably will not have a “rational” discussion:
“The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.
Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.”
Emphasis is mine. I deliberately did not include the link.
Jack asks: “When did climate science take on a political ideology?”
The Speaker of the Danish Parliment put it really well today.
“Unfortunately I seem to experience that scientists say: ‘We have a theory’ – then that crosses the road to the politicians who say: ‘We know’.”
http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article851820.ece
CoRev,
Lyle, basically you are stating the precautionary principle.
No, that’s not what he’s talking about. And you frequently confuse the precautionary principle with the asymmetric principle. They are different. Lyle is talking about social opportunity costs adjusted for regret costs. Old voters today should not be making decisions about global warming because it is a corruption of the representative agent model, and this skews regret costs.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w7983
CoRev,
I vaguely remember someone this blog telling us he built a very simple model to prove/that proved that CO2 increases preceeded warming periods.
Then you are misremembering. What I said was that historically CO2 concentrations tend to follow temperature increases by about 800 years. This is what the paleoclimatic record shows. But that is not what is happening now. Over the last 150 years CO2 concentrations started to lead temperature increases. The model was a simple toy VAR. The VAR approach simply looks at impulse/responses of shocks (called “innovations” in the literature). A VAR model does not a priori decide that one variable is endogenous and the other exogenous. A VAR model allows both variables to feedback upon the other; i.e., both are regarded as endogenous.
2slugs, right!
2slugs, and the dataset for your VAR model were from where? And you believe your model over what????
CoRev,
Thank god for Russian hackers, or we’d have to listen to 2slugbaits without laughing.
2slugs, let me refer you to my 4:29 comment from yesterday. Tell us again how that ole CO2 correlates to those cooling periods. It leads does it not? Oh, it leads the warming periods too. Umh, if it leads both then clearly CO2 and especially ACO2 are the cause for all things temp. Oops, we forgot that big ole ball in the sky. And, did you miss the pretty colored sections in that graph?
Yup! Trust in your model.
CoRev,
Temp data from GISS.
I have more faith in the physics than the toy model. The point is to demonstrate that you shouldn’t trust naive eyeball analyses.
CoRev,
2slugs, let me refer you to my 4:29 comment from yesterday. Tell us again how that ole CO2 correlates to those cooling periods.
Here’s your answer:
http://math.nist.gov/~BRust/pubs/Interface2005/PrePrint.pdf
BTW, if you had done the correlogram exercise that I recommended, and if you knew a few things about time series analysis, then the explanation would be apparent. Imposing stationarity on the temp data and removing autocorrelations results in a time series model with complex characteristic roots (i.e., imaginary numbers). Anytime you have complex characteristic roots in a time series model means that you will also get a sinusoidal, wavelike representation in the data. The reason is De Moivre’s theorem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Moivre's_formula
CoRev,
Oops, we forgot that big ole ball in the sky.
Do you have data that suggests the “big ole ball in the sky” is radiating more energy than scientists have accounted for to date?
GISS, 90-95% overlap with CRU. Has been shown to have siting problems (Anthony Watts) has been show to be dropping cooler, rural stations for warmer urban stations (exacerbating the siting problems), and poor processing of Urban heat island effect (also exacerbated by siting and site drop issues.) Yup, great choice.
I presume you took the CO2 data from Moana Loa? Or did you use some other global averaged source? I also presume you resolved them for periodicity, grid equality, etc.? Or did you use the annual averages, which buries all those lead/lag periods.
Regardless even again, your model shows nothing that wasn’t already known. CO2 and ACO2 are rising;however, it does not correlate with the temps, which varies up and down but only somewhat regularly.
GISS? Perhaps even worse than CRU. It is 90-95% overlapping with CRU source data. When you say the physics, the physics of what? Just what theory are you convinced about?
You have been seeing only part of the AGW story. You are still making decisions on only that part you have been shown. Not the whole of the science.
So with this statement you are claiming the correlations are artifacts of the math? All of this from looking at a graph. I know you did not go to the raw data, the author’s report nor did you review the author’s methods. That’s a sure sign of a desperate need to believe (or disbelieve your eyes.)
BTW, thanks for the report. I hadn’t read that in over a year. I much preferred Crichton’s. He was a much more entertaining writer. IIRC he died before he could respond.
2slugs, said: ““big ole ball in the sky” is radiating more energy than scientists have accounted for to date?” I never said it was radiating more. How did you get that from my little comment?
Why continue to argue with yourself? You are all over the place in your comments. It appears you just want a verbal jousting match. Why not talk about Climategate? Or at least pick one of the AGW theories?
For those who still think Climategate was not important. Today, the UK Meteorological Office announced a complete recalculation of the temperture data, all 160 years worth. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/uk-met-office-do-over-entire-global-temperature-series-160-years-worth/
Nah, there wan’t anything in those emails, computer codes and the data which still need to be completely redone, that raised any questions.
Nothing here! Just move along, as the pro-AGW sites kept insisting. How embarrassing for science.
2Slugbaits you said it well. Another way to ask is assume I could sell you an insurance policy that mitigated climate change, what premium would you pay? (making the question one can ask today and one that in other contexts people answer all the time). We do no the end conditions, if the cost was mininimal one would likley buy but there is a price at which one would not. By putting it to an insurance question it admits of uncertanty of the valididty of the results but does say the probability is greater than zero. Asking what premium one would pay combines the estimate of the risk, with an estimate of what one would pay to offset the risk.
The more I think about it this is the way the question should be put, since we will never be 100% sure that the scientists are right. Insurance is the human activity that attempts to quantify risks that may or may not happen (or risks we know will happen but not when such as life insurance it will payoff just don’t know when). Of course insurance is a legalized form of gambling life insurance is a bet you hope to loose, because you bet the insurance company you will die sooner than the mortality tables say, and the insurance company bets the other side. Most people would clearly want to loose the bet, but make it to mitigate the consequeces of dieing early.
Having an earth science background (geophysics) I look at the record and see that higher CO2 concentrations in the geologic past were correlated with warmer temps for example before the ice ages. This of course does not prove causation, but there were correlations. The correlations mean that one has to conceed that the climate change folks may be right (not necessarily are right) so thats what leads me to say lets look at the what the cost to insure against the changes would be. Insurance is designed to protect against things that may or may not happen, so it is a good model. The question then boils down to what premium would you pay to protect against the predicted changes. Obviously there are two componets of premium, 1 the chance that something will happen, and 2 the intensity of what happens, in this case we will ignore potential investment returns etc. to make the model more simple.
To folks who complain about making it all about money, what other criteria can one use? Economics allows an objectivity on the evaluation, other ways make the decision subjective, and therefore your subjective decision will likley be different than mine (the comment about kids being a perfect example as well as how old you are, and possibly where you live, all of which affect the subjective decision in inconsistent ways.
CoRev,
The NIST paper is more of a conventional regression type approach and tries to establish more of a causal or structural relationship. The correlegram is a simple time series tool that gives you insights into the decay patterns of the residuals. Think of correlograms as a kind of diagnostic tool. Remember what Menzie Chinn told you about the nonstationarity of the temperature anomalies. A “shock” effect was very slow to decay. If you need a higher order autoregressive model with complex characteristic roots in order to make the univariate series stationary, then you can be pretty sure that there will be a sinusoidal decay pattern. The point is that even a simple approach used for diagnostic purposes would have told you that there was a wavelike pattern of decay. That’s what you would have found using only temperature data; i.e., in univariate time series model.
The VAR approach takes two different time series and expresses each in terms of lags of both variables. It does not predetermine which variable is exogenous and which is endogenous; it treats both as endogenous and explicitly accounts for feedback effects. The trick in VAR models is to disentangle the intuitive meaning of the “error” terms because when you estimate a simple VAR you set things up in what is known as reduced form; i.e., each variable is expressed as a lag of itself or lags of other endogenous terms. This means that the error terms are really composites because it includes the effects of both lagged variables. BTW, figuring out how to reintroduce intuitive “structural” meaning into the error terms from VAR models is one of the things that made Ben Bernanke famous (1986). One of the outputs from a VAR is something called impulse/response charts, which show the persistence of a shock of variable A on variable B. The toy VAR showed that CO2 shocks had a statistically significant and long lived effect on temperature, but temperature did not have a similar effect on CO2 if you look at data over the last 150 years. This tells us that the paleoclimatic record of CO2 lagging temperature change may represent the “natural” course of events, but it does not describe what’s happening now.
The NIST paper was not a univariate time series model. The NIST paper was more of an old fashioned structural model and assumed that CO2 emissions were exogenous factors that had a contemporaneous effect on temperature (i.e., it used “t” rather than “t-1”) and it found that even after accounting for the sinusoidal patterns of the ocean, there was still an overall upward trend in temperature and that CO2 emissions were a statistically significant parameter in explaining temperature anomalies. After each sinusoidal cycle the baseline was reset to a higher temperature level. The assumption of a contemporaneous and exgenous effect of CO2 on temps is a strong assumption, but one that the VAR results more or less support.
Lyle, the basic premise is falling apart as we write. So insurance for the sky falling is for what purpose?
As Dr Roy Spencer questions, if the data and temp processing how and when will there be an investigation into the models. They are know to be unverified and unvalidated, huge NO! Nos! in modeling. So, why would anyone have any faith in their predictions?
BTW, if CO2 lags temp increases, geologically, then what are you trying to change?
CoRev,
You seem to be pretty confident that the revised Met Office calculations will be materially different. If the Met Office operates like any govt office that I’ve ever worked in, the Met already knows the likely results of the new calculation. Bureaucracies don’t make that kind of announcement that quickly and that aggressively (note they are going against the wishes of the rest of the govt) unless they already know the answer. I think you’re being played here.
CoRev,
Then please explain what you meant by your comment forgetting about the “big ole ball in the sky.” You’re the one who dropped the phrase. Explain what you meant if you were not referring to the sun’s energy received by the earth.
I’m being played? We all have been played! Dunno what material difference will come out, but there is one big winner. Us! When we can begin to trust the temp data, then we can begin to plan any needed changes. Until then why spend Billions or even trillions? At the least it will diminish the catastrophic predictions to noise level. Who is going to believe them except the religious fanatics?
The big change will be the acceptance of some of the alternative theories. Miskolczi’s is one that needs some work, but actually is more plausible, and more thoroughly explains temp changes than the CO2/feedback theory.
So, I believe we are about to accept alternative 1) Do nothing for at least three years.
Three more years of research in an open environment, with the review of already presented hypotheses in that open environment is a good thing. Don’t you agree?
Guest (aka CoRev),
Last spring I gave some graduate and faculty seminars to the folks at UAH and Redstone Arsenal. The topic was advanced time series analysis. I also had a nice (but ridiculously expensive) dinner with Dr. Spencer’s colleagues. Too bad Dr. Spencer didn’t attend the dinner, the lectures or the seminars.
Historically CO2 has lagged temperature increases, indicating some kind of complex natural relationship. The disturbing point is that over the last 150 years that pattern has reversed and now temperature change lags CO2. Are you going to try and tell us that this reversal is not manmade?
Once again you are all over the ballpark on temperature change. One week you agree that temperatures are increasing, then the next week you say that the data is all corrupt crap, so there’s no need to worry about buying an insurance policy. Well, if you believe there’s no need to buy an insurance policy, then presumably this week you also believe that not only is the temperature data corrupt crap, but that the correct temperature data would show no increase. Which is it? Pick a story and stick with it from one week to the next. You either agree with GISS and CRU and NOAA that temperatures are increasing or you don’t.
2slugs said: “ Are you going to try and tell us that this reversal is not manmade? ” Maybe, depends on how true the Knorr study may be. In it his findings are that the percentages of CO2 and ACO2 in the atmosphere are stable. He concludes that the natural sinks still are working well, but it also says that the CO2 increase is not totally due to manmade causes.
I have made my understanding of CC known here for many months now. I tryuly can not define yours other thanto have a verbal jousting exercise.
Never have I claimed that there was NO anthropogenic component. Nor have I denied that the temps are rising.
But, I have consistently said that the temps appear to be well within the normal range of natural variability, and that we have yet to define and measure the man influenced components of CC/temp increases.
You, OTH, appear to be anxious to take nearly any view, as long as it supports the pro-AGW position, or that of your immediate position. You have gone so far as to use your own techniques to reinforce your belief(s).
I will repeat: you have been shown only on side of the argument. You are making judgements from that restricted viewpoint. Furthermore, you are still defending yours and the pro-AGW view points ad nauseum. After being called a denier, on this very blog, I can actually use that term for you, and the handfull of those still pointlessly defending the pro-AGW extremist/catastrophic positions.
2slugs, why not go over to Bob Tisdale’ blog: http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/ and discuss your understanding with him? Using me as a proxy is as bad as using the Yamal magic tree to define world temps.
As far as the sinusoidal (which I think is perhaps an inaccurate term) you said: “…there was still an overall upward trend in temperature and that CO2 emissions were a statistically significant parameter in explaining temperature anomalies” Stistically significant, IF AND ONL IF, you beleive that it is there is a causal relationship, AND that relationship exceeds that of all others causes. Limiting the variables shows us what about causation? You might as well be comparing CO2 to the price of eggs in China. There is a relationship, but to select those two variables you must first believe that CO2 is the primary (or at least major) causation for Chinese egg price changes.
reviewing a NIST paper against a Hollywood personality’s paper(s) is interewting but not very scientific. As I said, Crichton was the better writer. Not sure who was the better scientist It doesn’t matter.
Well Guest you provided your vote on the issue of the premium you would be willing to pay, 0 Which is fine. I assume this is because you think there is no chance whatsoever that CC is real?
Lyle, I think I was posting as Guest, so I assume the comment is for me. Let me be perfectly clear. Yes, there is an increase in Global temps. Yes, some of it is due to increases in CO2 (note I did not say ACO2.) No, the catastrophic predictions are not likely to occur. No, we do not know how much of the warming is from anthro-sources. We have only conjecture based upon the models which will be the next big Climate issue as they have shown zero predictive capability. No, we do not know how much of the warming is due to ACO2. We have only conjecture based upon the models which will be the next big Climate issue as they have shown zero predictive capability. Every indication is that the temp increases are well within natural variability, and a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age.
So, my belief is that your insurance idea may just as well be against the Moon falling out of orbit. Could it happen? Will it happen? Yes in both instances, but not while we are still on this planet.
Finally, when you cite things like CC, please be specific. Are you talking about Global Warming? Are you talking about the catastrophic predictions due to…? If you are using the generic meaning for CC, then of course it is changing. Change is what defines climate.
2slugs, I was talking about sources for temp increases. Read these two sentences with that in mind: “Umh, if it leads both then clearly CO2 and especially ACO2 are the cause for all things temp. Oops, we forgot that big ole ball in the sky.” Some estmates are that 99+% of the planet’s heat is from the Sun. I can not confirm that estimate. Geothemal is miniscule when it reaches the surface.
Now, with that in mind if you wish to discuss the impact of a very slight (fractional) change in TSI, then that might get interesting.