Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

“Per qualche dollaro in più” or For A Few Dollars More . . .

Having helped quite a few younger people rearrange student loans from the private sector to Direct Loans or consolidate loans to achieve lower interest rates or payments; I just find this market-place-staging by some politicians offensive. July 1st the rates are expected to double (3+% to 6+%) for subsidized and unsubsidized Stafford loans and probably Perkins loans which all typically go to students who can least afford the “few extra dollars” as suggested by this newly minted Congressman from Indiana who appears to not be able to tie a decent knot in his tie. Student debt is on the upswing and appears to be the next bubble in which to contend. The rising deficit as suggested by Congressman Luke Messer is not increasing but is in a steady rate of decline and the economy is mediocre with slow job growth slow but is still far better than 1,2 or 3 years ago although it could use a shot of stimulus again. What is also insidious about this foray of increasing interest rates for those who can least afford it is there is “almost” no-way-out of it once students sign up for a loan. Those who have defaulted on ninja-style mortgages or did not pay hospital bills might understand the relentless pressure brought to bear; however, student loans have the official distinction of being cast in stone by Congress once a student signs his name. With only death, disability, or a lack of income over 20-or-so years being reasons for discharge can a person escape a student loan. We would not tolerate such for a mortgage or healthcare; but yet, we have locked our youth into such an arrangement.

Read or listen in to a few comments Indiana Congressman Luke Messer makes:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The real threat to a college education today is not a few more dollars on their student loans today, it is the fact of the explosive growth of debt; the fact the jobs in this economy for young people entering this economy have been the people most hurt by Obama’s policies

The bottom line is, what you’re saying is the president’s an effective politician. He does a good job of distracting people from things that they ought to be focused on, and sometimes focusing them on things that while important, listen, none of us want to see student-loan rates spike, are only part of the larger problem.”

“I think, as Republicans, we’ve got to do a better job of explaining how our ideas apply to young people. Sometimes it sounds like he’s selling ice cream and we’re selling spinach. But I think personal responsibility is pretty cool. There is nothing out of date about freedom, and we need to have the policies that get this budget back in line, stop the explosive growth of spending — spending that will be paid for by this generation. And we’ve got to do a better job of explaining that.”

Student debt as a result of high interest student loans is becoming more of a threat than the mortgage market ever did as there is no simple discharge. If one wanted to see the financial rats flee the commercial student loan business ship which this Congressman evidently supports, the president should propose simple interest for student loans.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/05/31/18660880-house-goper-sees-student-loans-as-trivial-distraction?lite “House GOPer sees student loans as trivial ‘distraction’

Tags: Comments (7) | |

2013 Social Security Report

Well I am back at Angry Bear and just getting my feet wet with WordPress, so this first post won’t be ambitious.

 

The 2013 Annual Report of the Trustees of Social Security was released today Friday the 31st of May. The short take-aways are ‘not much change’ and ‘no news is good news’: date of Trust Fund depletion remaining at 2033 and the 75 year actuarial gap going up from 2.66 to 2.72 which is precisely the structural amount due to the change in actuarial period. (On the other hand the numbers INSIDE that number would repay examination, an exercise for the diligent student.)

For now I am just putting this up for comment, consider this a Social Security open thread.

Tags: , , Comments (29) | |

Is the IRS Inspector General Himself Partisan, Or Is He Just Stupifyingly Clueless About the Law?

After the tax agency was denounced in recent weeks by President Obama, lawmakers and critics for what they described as improper scrutiny of at least 100 groups seeking I.R.S. recognition, The New York Times examined more than a dozen of the organizations, most of them organized as 501(c)(4) “social welfare” groups under the tax code, or in some cases as 501(c)(3) charities. None ran major election advertising campaigns, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, the main activity of a small number of big-spending tax-exempt groups that emerged as major players in the 2010 and 2012 elections.

But some organized volunteers, distributed pamphlets and held rallies leading up to the 2010 elections or the 2012 presidential election, as conservatives fought to turn out Mr. Obama.

A report issued this month by the Treasury Department’s inspector general, J. Russell George, found that inappropriate criteria, including groups’ policy positions, were used to flag some cases and that specialists in the I.R.S. office in Cincinnati, which reviews all tax-exemption requests, sometimes asked questions that were irrelevant to the application process.

And agency officials have acknowledged that specialists inappropriately used keywords like “Tea Party” and “Patriots” in searching through applications.

But some former I.R.S. officials disputed several of [I.G. J. Russell] George’s conclusions, including his assertion that it was inappropriate to ask groups about their donors, or whether their leaders had plans to run for public office. While unusual, the former officials said, such questions are not prohibited if relevant to an application under consideration.

“The I.G. was as careless with terminology as the Cincinnati office was,” said Marcus S. Owens, who headed the I.R.S.’s exempt organizations division until 2000. “Half of those questions have been found to be germane in court decisions.”

Groups Targeted by I.R.S. Tested Rules on Politics, Nicholas Confessore and Michael Luo, New York Times, May 26

I had planned to post on the Times story but haven’t had the time this week, and Linda Beale’s terrific post this morning would make an in-depth one by me redundant.  But I do want question, explicitly, the inspector general’s own competence, and maybe even his own political biases.  What struck me most about the Times story is its indication that the I.G. himself apparently is ignorant of the relevant law, particularly of some relevant court decisions; that his report apparently does not attempt to reconcile the specific actions of some of these groups with the law’s limiting of 501(c)(4) status to groups that do not electioneer; and that the investigation (apparently) did not attempt to determine whether groups with conservative-sounding names were “targeted” for further inquiry at a higher rate than groups with with liberal-sounding names.

If there were a significantly higher number of applicant conservative groups than applicant liberal groups, or if applicant conservative groups more often use political-sounding names than applicant liberal groups do, then–in light of the body of actual law pertaining to 501(c)(4) status–these statistics, it certainly seems to me, should have been featured in the report, and then widely reported by news organizations.

But instead, the I.G. started–and therefore finished–with the mistaken legal premise that political groups, groups whose very purpose was to electioneer, were entitled to 501(c)(4) status. This itself is stunning. From time to time, there are indications that an inspector general has deliberately skewed an investigative report or an investigation itself.  But I’ve never before heard of an inspector general who appeared unknowledgeable about the law relevant to the agency or department that his or her office was charged with inspecting upon receiving triggering information.

It would be nice now if Obama, having already expressed his outrage at the indication of political targeting by that IRS division, would now fully explain to the public what the relevant law actually is; that Democratic-leaning electioneering groups were targeted, too; why the groups that were targeted were targeted; what some of these groups actually do; and the real reason that these groups, whether Republican-leaning or Democratic-leaning, applied for 501(c)(4) status: to be able to hide the identity of the electioneering organization’s donors.

Obama, of course, won’t do that.  His primary goals throughout his presidency have been to please centrist pundits and try to tamp down on the virulence toward him from the right.  But any self-styled centrist pundit who would attack him for explaining the law and mentioning what the targeted organizations really do–that is, what exactly “targeting” meant here–is, by definition, no centrist.  And it’s painful to think of how much more successful this administration would have been all along, and how many serious mistakes it would have avoided, had Obama not dedicated himself so thoroughly to trying to assuage the unassuageable.  And that includes the political pundits of the studiously-centrist variety.

But the Senate Democrats should hold a hearing to make the points about the Times article makes.  The Times article provides a good starter witness list–including Inspector General George–and the names of some of the political organizations, Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning, that inappropriately filed 501(c)(4) applications, and whose officers should be subpoenaed to testify.

The purpose would be to clarify for the public what the law is now and why–why–groups whose raison d’être is openly partisan want the 501(c)(4) designation, and, in doing so, enlist public support for a new campaign-finance law with specific guidelines concerning public disclosure of donors to political-campaign groups irrespective of their IRS tax status.  And along the way maybe we would learn why, pray tell, the inspector general thinks current law permits (requires?) the IRS to authorize these overtly partisan groups to keep their donors’ identities secret.  That alone would be worth the trouble.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (1) | |

31 Million Uninsured Under the PPACA . . .

Over at “Economists View,” Anne and Muses are having a discussion over why some 30-something million will be uninsured under the PPACA Paul Krugman: The Obamacare Shock. The conversation goes back and forth citing references without giving any real explanation of what the 31 million is composed of and why they will not be covered. For some reason today, I can not log-in and add to the conversation with an explanation of the 31 million.

Perhaps it is a little known fact; but states today can, if they so choose to do so, qualify Medicaid coverage for everyone. States can also cover beyond 100% of FPL which some states do. The majority of states do not cover certain single adults as determined by each state’s rules for Medicaid coverage.

“Currently, few states cover non-disabled, non-pregnant parents up to 138 percent of FPL in Medicaid, and even fewer states cover such adults without dependent children. At present, only 18 states provide comprehensive Medicaid coverage to parents at or above 100 percent of FPL ($18,530 for a family of three in 2011), and the median state covers working and non-working parents up to only 63 and 37 percent of FPL, respectively. The majority of states do not cover non-disabled, non-pregnant adults without dependent children at any income level, and many low-income women only qualify for Medicaid coverage when they are pregnant. As has been noted, ‘it’s a very common misconception that Medicaid covers all poor people, but that’s far from the truth.'”

“Nationally, just over half (53 percent) of the uninsured who would be newly eligible for Medicaid are male. This is not surprising, since, as indicated above, Medicaid has historically had much broader eligibility for parents than for adults without dependent children, and a high proportion of these parents have been single mothers. ‘Overall, 47 percent of the uninsured who would be made newly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA are women.” Opting into the Medicaid Expansion under the ACA: Who Are the Uninsured Adults Who Could Gain Health Insurance Coverage?.

The expansion of Medicaid to 138% of FPL under the PPACA would have mandated state coverage for single adults not qualifying for the PPACA and its subsidies. The SCOTUS decision to allow states to back out of the expanded Medicaid coverage up to 138% FPL was previously mandatory under the PPACA with the threat of the removal of Medicaid subsidies. States not expanding Medicaid coverage will maintain the status quo and many who would have been covered under Medicaid may now go uninsured as they will not qualify for the PPACA. The state exclusions for which many blogs, politicians, and conservative think tanks such as Cato blame the PPACA as causing is the result of states not expanding Medicaid and accounts for 15.1 million uninsured of the potential 31 million. Another estimated 11.2 million are considered to be illegal residents of the US who will not be covered by the PPACA. Treatment of Non-Citizens under the PPACA and do not have healthcare insurance. The balance of the uninsured is made up of those exempt from being insured, those opting out and paying the penalty, those who may not understand how to apply for Medicaid, etc.

Without a doubt, Republicans hope the constituency will not understand the issues and blame the PPACA for the lack of coverage of single adults by using the 31 million as a political numeric. It is also doubtful whether there is a real concern by politicians for the coverage of illegal residents. I also believe it to be ironic when Republican-lead states are concerned a Republican-controlled House may pull the carpet out from under them by negating funding for the expansion of Medicaid in the future.

Tags: Comments (7) | |

What Reinhart and Rogoff should do now

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff wrote an angry open letter about how Krugman has been uncivil to them.  Krugman’s reply strikes me as being convincing even devastating.

Update: My full fisking here.

I want to focus on one sentence in the R&R letter

 

politicians may float a citation to an academic paper if it suits their purposes.  But there are limits to how much policy traction they can get with this device when the paper’s authors are out offering very different policy conclusions. “ 


The claim that there are such limits is not supported with any historical evidence.  I think it is plainly false, unless the limits are say thta the  politicians can’t travel faster than light by distorting academic work.

 

The example of R&R and the alleged 90% critical level of debt to GDP is proof that their claim is false.  Politicians have gotten huge policy traction citing them and Herndon had a significant impact on the policy debate.

update: The huge traction is documented here

Also note the case of Kenneth Arrow whose first welfare theorem and impossibility theorem have been used for decades to argue that markets are superior to political processes and who is a democratic socialist.  His view on that rather important issue has had no impact on the debate, while misuse of his mathematical results has had a huge impact. Phillips made no claim that the scatter he plotted was a structural relationship.  He expressed horror over how it was used.

 

R&R’s claim about history is plainly utterly false and they should know it.

 

But there is something they can, and really should, do.  If politicians are misusing their work, they can denounce those politicians by name.  Consider

 

The 90% debt-to-GPD ratio was sighted by many as proof of the necessity of austerity in fiscal matters. Paul Ryan’s 2012 “Path to Prosperity” budget plan cited the paper and specifically cited the 90% figure. European Union Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner Olli Rehn cited the study when urging EU member nations to cut their budgets, saying, “Serious empirical research shows that public debt above 90% of GDP acts as a permanent drag on growth.”

Reinhart and Rogoff could and should have said “Paul Ryan, you know nothing of our work” (obligatory Annie Hall reference).  They did not.  They still can.  I think they should.  His claims have no basis in the evidence and all reality based people should say so.

 

 

Tags: Comments (14) | |

What Obligations Do Mainstream Media Editors (e.g., The Washington Post’s) Have to Bar Their Regular Political Columnists (e.g., Michael Gerson) From Stating Bald Misrepresentations of Fact?

Compare:

When people realize that their most personal, sensitive, intimate, private health-care information is in the hands of the IRS that’s been willing to use people’s tax information against political opponents of this administration, then people have pause and they pull back in horror.

— Michele Bachmann, on ABC News/Yahoo, May 20 (H/T Glenn Kessler, in a spot-on takedown today)

And:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Comments (24) | |

The Internal Blue Cross/Blue Shield Revenue Service. Awesome!

“Since the I.R.S. also is the chief enforcer of Obamacare requirements, [Michele Bachmann] asked whether the I.R.S.’s admission means it ‘will deny or delay access to health care’ for conservatives. At this point, she said, that ‘is a reasonable question to ask.’ ”

— Bob Unruh, Why Obama Released Embarrassing IRS Bombshell, WND Exclusive, May 13

Yes, that’s right.  You read the title of this post correctly.  Obamacare turns out to be a single-payer healthcare insurance program, after all!

Or so says Michele Bachmann, anyway.  And she certainly would know.

This is great news, in my opinion.  But, I mean, who knew?  I’d thought until now that the only role that the IRS plays in Obamacare was to collect the penalty, via the tax apparatus, from individuals who aren’t insured through their (or a family member’s) employer and who choose to pay the penalty rather than buy insurance in the private market.  In other words, that the IRS role concerns only people who don’t have healthcare insurance, not people who do.

But apparently I was wrong.  I haven’t actually read the statute, which is infamously long, and somewhere in it, it requires all healthcare insurance premiums to be paid to the IRS.  The  name of which, once the full law kicks in next year, will be the Internal Blue Cross/Blue Shield Revenue Service.

Yes, the agency will still collect ordinary income taxes as it does now.  But it also become our healthcare insurer. Unless you are a conservative, in which case it will still require you or your employer to pay your insurance premiums to that agency. Or maybe just through that agency; I’m not sure which.  As I said, I haven’t read the statute, so I don’t know whether this will be like the Medicare system, or instead the agency will forward the premiums to your chosen private insurer, at least unless you’re a conservation, in which case the agency might use your premiums to pay for daycare for the young children of liberals.

Or maybe I’m misunderstanding completely, because of wishful thinking on my part.  Maybe instead, the statute requires the private insurance companies to get the agency’s approval before agreeing to pay a policyholder’s medical bills.

Yeah, that must be it.  The statute requires the private insurance companies to get the agency’s approval before agreeing to pay a policyholder’s medical bills. It’s odd, though, that three years after the statute’s enactment, this has never been mentioned before. By anyone.  Which makes that report about the Bachmann interview truly an exclusive.

Tags: , , , , Comments (21) | |

Why, Yes! Of Course! The Voters Will Vote to End Social Security, Medicare, Dodd-Frank and the EPA Because the IRS Improperly Hassled Political “Social Welfare” Organizations and the DOJ Issued Sweeping Subpoenas of AP Phone Lines!

Well, that didn’t take long, did it?

It began yesterday morning, with a Politico article by Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, and an accompanying video by Allen, suggesting improper actions of the IRS resulting from its inability to adequately handle the tsunami of exempt-organizations applications, coupled with the DOJ’s overly aggressive use of its subpoena powers in trying to ferret out the source of a national-security leak to an AP reporter, might cause voters to conclude that what is needed is more Republicans in high office.

Apparently that would be because voters can’t distinguish between economic libertarianism and civil rights libertarianism of the First Amendment and Due Process variety.  And this must be so, because within just 24 hours after the Politico folks asserted it, there’s been another tsunami, this one in the form of a slew of mainstream pundits repeating the claim.  John Dickerson of Slate.  Reid Wilson of the National Journal.  To name two.*

Dickerson argues that the Obama administration “is doing a far better job making the case for conservatism than Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell, or John Boehner ever did.” He says this is because “[s]howing is always better than telling, and when the government overreaches in so many ways it gives support to the conservative argument about the inherently rapacious nature of government.”

Yup.  I don’t know about you all, but the fact that the IRS mishandled some exempt-organizations applications in the wake of Citizens United, and that the Justice Department has been crazily overzealous in its handling of national security leakers, partly in order to hush the criticism from, um, conservatives that there has been insufficient investigation into the leaks, sure as heck makes me think Paul Krugman is spouting dangerous nonsense by arguing so forcefully for more fiscal stimulus, as opposed to ever more fiscal austerity. It’s not surprising that Boston Federal Reserve chief executive Eric Rosengren is pleading for a turn away from further budget cuts; he does, after all, work for the federal government in an unelected position, and so of course he wants the federal government to be ever more inherently rapacious.

No matter that the most inherently rapacious unelected federal officials sit on the federal bench, and in the name of conservatism pathologically gut Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.  And I won’t even mention the habeas corpus provision of the Constitution’s Article I, Section 9, Clause 2.  “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” Or unless when the conservative Supreme Court majority privileges state courts’ rights over the Supremacy clause.  As it does regularly.

What we need to secure our individual civil rights is more Samuel Alitos and Antonin Scalias on the Supreme court and on the lower federal courts, in order to ensure the continuation and expansion of the inherently rapacious federal and state criminal and civil justice system against non-corporate persons. The voters surely will look at the dual scandals of this week and draw that conclusion. In addition to the obvious conclusion that financial-services regulation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and other Dodd-Frank provisions should be gutted along with the social safety net, taxes should be lowered for the likes of the Romneys, and that we need to kill the EPA.

To hell with climate change!  Pun intended.  And let hungry children and seniors eat cake and pay for their own healthcare!  After all, the IRS mishandled the post-Citizens United influx of exempt-organizations applications. So what we need is more Citizens United.  The court opinion; not actual citizens united.

Greg Sargent says of Wilson’s article in the National Journal that he “makes the case that 2014 will look more like 2006” than 1998, when the public was so disgusted with Republican scandal-mongering and the Clinton impeachment thing that Democrats routed Republicans in that year’s midterm election even though it was the sixth year of the Clinton presidency, thus countering historical trends.  Wilson argues the case, but unsuccessfully.  “The beginning of Bush’s second term bears the most resemblance to the current predicament in which Obama finds himself,” Wilson says.  “ The war in Iraq had grown unpopular during 2005, and the government’s bungling of the recovery from Hurricane Katrina gave voters the sense that Washington was inept.”

Yes, it gave voters the sense that the Bush administration was inept.  The concern was that FEMA did not do enough for Katrina victims, precisely because conservatism is against having the government provide assistance to people in need.  The Bush administration got us into a war in Iraq under false pretenses, precisely because that was what conservatives wanted, and then bungled the war itself.

And curiously absent from Wilson’s analysis is that Bush spent the first year of his second term campaigning to privatize Social Security.  Does Wilson think that the public changed its mind about the wisdom of privatizing Social Security, or, for that matter, privatizing or ending the social safety net–or FEMA!–by November 2006?   Does Dickerson?  Really?  What about Allen?  (Okay, maybe Allen does.)

A surprisingly common characteristic of current political punditry is the presumption that what matters to voters is policy semantics rather than actual policy.  And the more generic, sweeping, and ill-defined, the better.  Actual policy and specifics of ideology don’t matter.  What matters is such generic phrases as “big government,” “small government,” and “conservative,” however unrelated to one big/small-government issue another big/small-government issue is.

Another problem with mainstream pundits is their mindless custom of incessant analogy based upon some tenuous or tangential common fact between the earlier and the current or future situation.  I realize that it is their job to say something about big political stories, and that, at least for most of them, they don’t have the option of adhering to the wise adage of not saying anything at all if you don’t have anything worth saying.  But this nonsense becomes viral.  Really quickly.  As though it’s actual wisdom rather than the simplistic, formulaic vapidity that it is.

The danger right now is that Democratic politicians will cower in the face of it.  Politically sensitive IRS error and DOJ subpoena overreach = we should lower taxes on the wealthy and gut the social safety net and environmental and financial regulatory authority; that’s an odd mathematical equation.  Except maybe in Washington, a town not known for Einstein protégés.

Wilson, in his National Journal article, acknowledges that “[t]he mishandling of Hurricane Katrina and the various troubles Obama is answering for now are completely different types of scandals.”  He just doesn’t think the voting public will recognize the difference.  He thinks that the “message” the IRS and DOJ matters “send to voters about the aptitude of governing is remarkably similar” to the Bush administration’s mishandling of Katrina and Iraq.  “Once voters lost confidence in Bush’s ability to manage government, the Republican brand began to suffer…If voters begin to believe that Obama is similarly ill-equipped to govern, it will be the Democrats in Congress who bear the brunt of the political punishment.”

Unless, of course, the voters conclude that what happened to those applicant nonprofit organizations in the hands of the IRS–that they were temporarily denied tax-exempt status and asked to identify their donors, and that the DOJ issued sweeping subpoenas for the AP’s phone records in a national-security-leak investigation–really does not actually mean that we should privatize Social Security and Medicare. That is, that they conclude that those former things don’t just naturally lead to the latter ones, even though these political analysts think they do.  That they conclude that linking the two is bizarre and outright crazy.  Which is a real possibility, since it is.

—-

*CORRECTION: This post initially and incorrectly included Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post among the political analysts who are making this argument.  Actually, Tumulty’s piece says that others–specifically, Republicans–are pushing this claim.  Also, this post has been edited slightly for clarity after its initial posting. 5/16 at 9:20 p.m.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (13) | |

Reader (and Statistician) Jan Galkowski’s Quick Primer on CO2 and Climate Change

This weekend’s open thread here on AB produced an awesome post by reader, statistician and obvious genius Jan Galkowski on the significance of last week’s report on the level of CO2 now in the atmosphere.  Here’s part of the thread, including Mr. Galkowski’s post:

Rjs / May 11, 2013 4:54 am

in case you missed it, yesterday we breached 400 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide…

all you need to know in just one chart

Sammy / May 11, 2013 3:54 pm

rjs,

Don’t fall for the scare tactics. The y axis scale on your graph is “parts per million.” So we’ve gone from 300 max parts per million, to 400 parts per million. Or .0003 to .0004 percentage CO2. This is statistically insignificant. Plus, as Jack pointed out, there “little correlation with global temperature.”

This graph backs up Jack’s point over a longer time frame; and also shows that we are historically at a low in atmospheric CO2:

Sammy / May 11, 2013 3:54 pm

rjs,

Don’t fall for the scare tactics. The y axis scale on your graph is “parts per million.” So we’ve gone from 300 max parts per million, to 400 parts per million. Or .0003 to .0004 percentage CO2. This is statistically insignificant. Plus, as Jack pointed out, there “little correlation with global temperature.”

This graph backs up Jack’s point over a longer time frame; and also shows that we are historically at a low in atmospheric CO2:

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=CO2+over+time&FORM=HDRSC2&&id=F13D874C4502CF62C6C7A3A8DB2764DBC4C2E038&selectedIndex=1#view=detail&id=F13D874C4502CF62C6C7A3A8DB2764DBC4C2E038&selectedIndex=0

Jan Galkowski / May 12, 2013 2:52 pm

@Sammy,

Surely you’ll agree the argument that materials in systems are safe as long as their concentrations are small is erroneous. There are many examples where tiny amounts will derail proper operation.

But, to your specific point, the fact that CO2 concentration is, as Richard Alley calls it, The Biggest Control Knob of Earth’s climate is due to a simple confluence of [t]hree physical facts.

First, blackbody radiation from a body at Earth’s temperature happens to have the bulk of its outgoing radiation in the region of the infrared spectrum between 400 per cm and 1000 per cm.

<!–more–>

Second, CO2 happens to have a broad absorption between 550 per cm and 750 per cm.

Third, CO2 happens to resonate strongly at 667 per cm and, when it goes to ground state, reemits photons with frequencies very close to that. CO2′s cross-section for 667 per cm photons is very high. Thus, a stray photon at 667 per cm will in all likelihood be reabsorbed by another CO2 molecule.

This means about 2/3 of the radiation in the 550-750 per cm band gets captured by CO2, and the stronger the concentration, the more thorought the lasing effect of emission and reabsorption.

The net of this is that about 1.8 Watts per square meter are re-radiated from CO2 in the lowest 100 meters of atmosphere all around the planet. 1.8 Watts per square meter times the area of the Earth is about 690 Terawatts. That energy has to go somewhere, and does, boosting convection in atmosphere and oceans, as well as being conveyed in the water evaporation and condensation cycle, which essentially serves as a heat pump. Some goes into deep ocean, raising its temperature and weakening its ability to absorb CO2.

The greater differences in energy density, as always, demand equalization, so the poles warm more, percentagewise, than the tropics and intermediate lattitudes. This 690 Terawatts increases to 2000 Terawatts at 700 ppm CO2.

There is no trending or paleoclimate evidence needed to establish this. This is simple physics. It would be truly remarkable if 690 Terawatts of additional forcing had no effects upon Earth weather.

They who might be interested in more details regarding this should monitor my blog,

http://hypergeometric.wordpress.com

where a 4-part lecture describing these mechanisms and the reason we know atmospheric CO2 increases are due to people’s actions, namely fossil fuels, will be described in detail, probably some time this summer.

Thanks.

Those among us who can do such things as add and subtract will have an easier time understanding the specifics of Mr. Galkowski’s post than those among us (okay, the one among us) who cannot.  But even those of us in the latter category can understand the gist of this.  And its importance.  (Trust me on that.)

 

Tags: , Comments (50) | |