tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post733946953239534937..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Why I'd die on this hill, part 4Rick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-67955649696946931972009-12-23T11:22:13.916-06:002009-12-23T11:22:13.916-06:00Just want to make one more clarifying point on thi...Just want to make one more clarifying point on this:<br /><br /><i>I think that we disagree - as we often do - on the relative value of state managed solutions.</i><br /><br />Perhaps part of the issue is that you're viewing this as a debate over state managed solutions, while I'm viewing this is a debate over how to effectively and responsibly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I could care less whether the solution is state managed or not, just as I could care less whether the solution to our health care crisis involved a public option. I know there's some on the left who do care about the public/private nature of the means, but that's not me, and I don't think that's the president, as he's made clear in the health care debate.<br /><br />But, at the same time, while government-led solution isn't the <i>goal</i>, it's my belief (and I think the president's) that it isn't something that should be bypassed as a <i>means</i> simply because of ideological predispositions. So, if there's an alternative solution that is as effective and responsible that isn't government-driven, then fine, let's hear it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-65292224525320535872009-12-23T10:37:58.146-06:002009-12-23T10:37:58.146-06:00Not much time today, so just a few quick points......Not much time today, so just a few quick points...<br /><br /><i>a reduction in consumption with a present value of between 1.3 and 2 trillion dollars for the Waxman-Markey based alternative. I would call that a rather significant - even devastating - cost. Perhaps the benefits would outweigh it, but that seems debateable and that's what I'll get to next.</i><br /><br />Large consumption figures, yes, but it's important to note they represent proportionately a 0.3-0.5% decrease. And your last line is key; again, the Brookings report didn't evaluate Waxman-Markey, it only looked at a scenario the mirrored the emissions cuts called for in the bill, explicitly stating it wasn't a cost-benefit analysis, it only considered mitigation costs and emissions reductions, and it ignored entirely offsets and any other additional public investments.<br /><br /><i>And, of course, Brookings estimates a far lower reduction in emissions than Waxman-Markey actually calls for.</i><br /><br />No, actually. The Brookings report scenario looked at cuts at 20% in 2020 and 40% in 2030, while Waxman-Markey has them at 17% in 2020 and 42% in 2030.<br /><br /><i>As far as what happened at Copenhagen, I stand by statement that there is an awful lot of consternation in the environmentalist community.</i><br /><br />That wasn't your initial statement. Your initial statement was that the environmental community sees no progress with the Copenhagen accord -- as a means for justifying your own claim of the same -- and that's clearly not the case.<br /><br /><i>I don't think you can fairly deny that.</i><br /><br />Consternation in segments of the environmentalist community, certainly -- I never even suggested that. The "environmental community" is big and diverse. The same is true with proponents of health care reform -- there are those on the far left of the issue who think Obama is a sell-out. But the more serious, respected environmental groups I cited understand and appreciate the diplomatic process along with the economic cost-benefit analysis that needs to go into any solution. <br /><br /><i>the relative value of state managed solutions. But I'll get to that later.</i><br /><br />I hope that your future comments include more than just theoretical abstractions along with actual alternative solutions that address the climate change issue -- in particular, how to generate investment in renewable capacities, which is central to emissions cuts, without significant public involvement and leadership.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-58412048820968264542009-12-23T09:06:24.666-06:002009-12-23T09:06:24.666-06:00Seth
I had not seen the Wall Street Journal edito...Seth<br /><br />I had not seen the Wall Street Journal editorial, but it is absolutely true. The paper could not have commenting in June on a CBO report that was issued in September. They were, in fact, commenting on <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf" rel="nofollow">this one</a> which is the source of the $175/household figure that you referred to and to which I was responding. That report absolutely did not estimate impacts on GDP.<br /><br />As for the September report, I am not going to comment on it without taking the time to understand it. There is a lot more to it than what you quoted. From a quick glance, you may well be correct that it does not differ much from Brookings but Brookings (which evaluated a number of different approaches including a discussion draft of Waxman-Markey) estimated a reduction in consumption with a present value of between 1.3 and 2 trillion dollars for the Waxman-Markey based alternative. I would call that a rather significant - even devastating - cost. Perhaps the benefits would outweigh it, but that seems debateable and that's what I'll get to next.<br /><br />And, of course, Brookings estimates a far lower reduction in emissions than Waxman-Markey actually calls for. And none of this takes into account the impact for economies that are unlikely to be able to afford the alternative energy sources and scrubbing technologies that all of these estimates assume.<br /><br />As far as what happened at Copenhagen, I stand by statement that there is an awful lot of consternation in the environmentalist community. I don't think you can fairly deny that. I will concede that it probably makes sense to move away from negotiating with people who have no emissions to reduce, but that does not result in any actual agreement nor is it clear that it makes an actual agreement more probable.<br /><br />At the end of day, I think that we disagree - as we often do - on the relative value of state managed solutions. But I'll get to that later. Merry Christmas for now.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-27867048131664671662009-12-22T08:52:58.091-06:002009-12-22T08:52:58.091-06:00But it also won't do a thing to change the cli...<i>But it also won't do a thing to change the climate.</i><br /><br />Not true. It would involve a reduction of emissions by 17%, including the jump starting of a series of initiatives like a renewable electricity standard, smart grid investments, renewable technologies, fuel-efficient consumer incentives, etc., to put the country in a position to reach the higher cuts called for in the bill and by climatologists. Doing nothing for the next decade is only going to make the climb steeper, and it only really makes sense if you don't think there's any value in addressing climate change at all. That's the only dead end here.<br /><br /><i>recall that there was a time when Obama wanted to continue Kyoto</i><br /><br />Nope. Here's the Obama campaign's <a href="http://obama.3cdn.net/4465b108758abf7a42_a3jmvyfa5.pdf" rel="nofollow">position paper</a> on energy. Note, in particular, the section titled, "Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters," which explicitly points to the importance of developing "a post-Kyoto framework." <br /><br /><i>There is little or no chance that anything like Waxman-Markey is going to pass.</i><br /><br />That's what conservatives said about health care reform.<br /><br /><i>Certainly the environmentalist community sees no progress.</i><br /><br />Except the <a href="http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=150181.0" rel="nofollow">Sierra Club</a>, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2009/12/18/obama-announces-climate-deal-in-copenhagen/" rel="nofollow">the Environmental Defense Fund</a>, <a href="http://www.acore.org/news/article/2009/12/21/acore_applauds_and_challenges_historic_climate_agreement_engineered_presiden" rel="nofollow">the American Council on Renewable Energy</a>, <a href="http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/statement-of-lcv-president-gene-karpinski-on-copenhagen-climate-deal.html" rel="nofollow">the League of Conservation Voters</a>, <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/19/nwfs-jeremy-symons-on-the-copenhagen-accord/" rel="nofollow">the National Wildlife Federation</a>, <a href="http://wecanlead.org/newsroom/release1218.html" rel="nofollow">the We Can Lead coalition</a>...<br /><br />Anyway, hoping you and your family have a Merry Christmas.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-52041429716741246512009-12-22T08:52:07.025-06:002009-12-22T08:52:07.025-06:00it was not only Heritage and ACCF, but Brookings t...<i>it was not only Heritage and ACCF, but Brookings that estimated a far more significant economic impact</i><br /><br />I know a Heritage <a href="http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/wm2504.cfm#_ftn3" rel="nofollow">blog post</a> tried to take cover in the Brookings report, but if you follow the link to it from the post, you'll see in the opening slide that <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0608_climate_change_economy/20090608_climate_change_economy.pdf" rel="nofollow">the Brookings report</a> isn't based on any particular legislation. In other words, it isn't a full review of Waxman-Markey. One of the scenarios it maps out is "loosely tied to Waxman-Markey" in terms of emissions cuts, but without assessing all of the other components of the bill (offsets, renewable energy investments, fuel-efficient consumer rebates, worker transition, etc.), it can hardly stand as a complete economic assessment of it.<br /><br />But, that said, I don't think the Brookings report demonstrated "a far more significant economic impact" than the CBO. The employment numbers show an initial 0.4% decline from the "do nothing" approach after 5 years, or so, but then an increase to 0.2% below "do nothing" by 2025 and moving forward from there. GDP is tracked to continue a steady increase under the scenario, increasing only slightly less (1% in 2020, 1.5% in 2030) than "do nothing." But, again, you can hardly rely on those even modest numbers since, as it points on the first bullet point of the first slide: "Not an analysis of particular bills." For instance, it’s difficult to complete a full assessment on employment without considering renewable investments and worker transition funding.<br /><br />And incompleteness that's actual something the Brookings report and the Heritage report have in common (though the Brookings report was forthright about it). As the Pew Center <a href="http://www.pewclimate.org/acesa/eight-myths/June2009" rel="nofollow">explains</a>, "the Heritage Foundation recently issued a memo claiming that the Waxman-Markey bill would cost households $4,300 annually. But this analysis fails to consider many of the key provisions of the bill including its extensive use of offsets to reduce overall costs and its use of the value of emission allowances to reduce costs to consumers."<br /><br /><i>I guess that's not surprising since the CBO did not even try to estimate the impact on GDP.</i><br /><br />Except that <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/105xx/doc10573/09-17-Greenhouse-Gas.pdf" rel="nofollow">it did</a>. I know, I know. The WSJ editorial page <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html" rel="nofollow">said</a> they didn't in June, so it still must be true. Except it's not, and it did.<br /><br />Here's that assessment: "the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concludes that the cap-and- trade provisions of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACESA), if implemented, would reduce gross domestic product (GDP) below what it would otherwise have been—by roughly 1⁄4 percent to 3⁄4 percent in 2020 and by between 1 percent and 31⁄2 percent in 2050. By way of comparison, CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today, so those changes would be comparatively modest."<br /><br />More...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-54864779350393102572009-12-22T04:53:06.575-06:002009-12-22T04:53:06.575-06:00As for Obama's triumph at Copenhagen, recall t...As for Obama's triumph at Copenhagen, recall that there was a time when Obama wanted to continue Kyoto and he certainly went into Copenhagen wanting an agreement.<br /><br />One of the reasons that he couldn't get it is because he knows he can't promise very much. There is little or no chance that anything like Waxman-Markey is going to pass. He wasn't about to be embarassed like Clinton was.<br /><br />But I fail to see what he really accomplished other than saving some face. The Chinese have agreed to nothing. Whether they can hide behind the framework of being a "developing" nation does not matter (do you really think they won't get any of the global warming slush fund?)until they actually agree to something.<br /><br />Certainly the environmentalist community sees no progress. I count that as a good thing, but they seem to regard Obama as having sold out.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-50199114838876627302009-12-22T04:44:22.129-06:002009-12-22T04:44:22.129-06:00Seth
I want to post more on this when I have more...Seth<br /><br />I want to post more on this when I have more time but keep in mind that it was not only Heritage and ACCF, but Brookings that estimated a far more significant economic impact. I guess that's not surprising since the CBO did not even try to estimate the impact on GDP.<br /><br />I am a bit older than you and one of the consistent themes of American politics has been promises of mainstream liberals that we can save the world on the cheap. Until alternate sources of energy can be found, carbon reductions cost money. <br /><br />Of course, smaller carbon reductions cost less money and that's why one can say that - maybe - 17% reduction by 2020 won't count as "devastating." But it also won't do a thing to change the climate.<br /><br />For that, you need the bigger numbers that you now seem to be saying that Waxman-Markey doesn't "really" commit us to.<br /><br />On that point, we may some common ground. I think that most of these commitments to emissions reductons aren't serious. That's why Kyoto failed and Copenhagen was a waste of time.<br /><br />I think that Bjorn Lomberg has it right. Focusing on commitments to reduce emissions without the means to do so is a dead end.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-68689653114280235342009-12-21T21:08:36.901-06:002009-12-21T21:08:36.901-06:00Tom
It most certainly did not have a Safe-T-Lip b...Tom<br /><br />It most certainly did not have a Safe-T-Lip because that is a patented product that makes it impossible to drive a fork lift off a dock. (It creates a barrier when the leveler is in the stored position.) There is none other - at least none other that works in the same way and as well - than by Rite Hite. Unfortunately, not every one buys one or I would have left with a much larger stash.<br /><br />The MWP may have been localized or it may not have been. It's kind of hard to know given the relative paucity of data. You keep missing my point which is not that the MWP was as warm as today. Rather, it is that there is really no way to know. Boomerang or hockey stick? Based on what I've read, it seems that either is possible.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-23571975378006640382009-12-21T19:12:00.166-06:002009-12-21T19:12:00.166-06:00There is absolutely nothing in your description of...<i>There is absolutely nothing in your description of the Copenhagen denouement which is inconsistent with the description of kicking a can down the road.</i><br /><br />Yes, there is -- not when it comes to an actual paper agreement, perhaps, but the finished product is hardly all there is to diplomacy. Had Obama not struck an accord with the Chinese and other larger developing nations to move away from Kyoto, that still would be the prevailing dynamic. That doesn't necessarily mean China is going to do anything different (see below), but it does mean -- as I explained -- that it gives the rest of the world (including the US Congress) a sign that it's willing to join them in doing something about climate change collectively. If the Kyoto dynamic prevailed heading out of Copenhagen, the process of working on a future treaty to replace Kyoto would've been pushed back further and it would've almost certainly sunk chances of the US passing a bill in the Senate in 2010 to match Waxman/Markey, effectively pushing back any hope in the US of starting to work on climate change even further (making the climb to the stated goals even steeper).<br /><br /><i>But the notion that they have been manuevered into doing something that they do not wish to do is wishful thinking.</i><br /><br />I never said they did something they didn't want to do. You see, the Chinese government <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6334749.stm" rel="nofollow">actually believes</a> in the science of climate change and the negative impacts doing nothing can have -- anti-growth alarmist hippies that they are.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-44990214367941800752009-12-21T19:11:41.887-06:002009-12-21T19:11:41.887-06:00I know that you'll want to dismiss Heritage an...<i>I know that you'll want to dismiss Heritage and ACCR/NAM as "biased" but they are no more or less subject to biases than the CBO and EPA.</i><br /><br />Not a chance, Rick. For argument's sake, I'll grant you the potential for political biases in the EPA report since that agency is overseen by an appointee of the president (though I'd still question on the level of the politically-driven Heritage foundation or manufacturing lobbyists). But the CBO is not the same as Congress, as you imply at the start of your comment (the commissioning of a CBO report by Congress, that is, isn't the same as the commissioning of a report by the National Association of Manufacturers), and its reports aren't even close to "more or less" the same as Heritage or a trade group when it comes to political biases.<br /><br />Bottom line, the CBO exists as an independent agency aimed at impartially providing fiscal analysis on congressional measures, just like the LFB in Wisconsin. Heritage exists to push conservative ideas; that doesn't mean it should be ignored, but it's not on the same playing field as the CBO when it comes to biases. NAM exists to serve the interests of its members, not inform them; again, that doesn't mean it should be ignored, but it's not on the same playing field as the CBO when it comes to biases. <br /><br /><i>Your burden, Seth, is to think that we can commit - today - to reducing emissions by 83% (which is what the bill calls for) in fourty years without significant economic impact.</i><br /><br />No, my "burden" is to think that we can <b>put ourselves on a path</b> today to reducing emissions by 83% in forty years without any significant <b>negative</b> economic impact. No economic analysis can realistically predict out for 40 years, which is why the CBO limits itself to 10 years. 83% after 40 years is a goal, and that's being written into the legislation to put us on a path to achieve it. It's important, but the only true binding measures in the legislation take place in the upcoming decade; to be sure, long-term legislation can, and often does, get amended over time to adjust to new economic realities. That's not saying this legislation is unrealistic or will need to drastically change or even much at all, but that any legislation that has an economic impact beyond 10-15 years is almost certainly going to require an eye toward potential revisions along the way, and it certainly doesn't mean that it shouldn't become law because the long-term economic ramifications can't be known beyond a doubt (or come without conflicting reports prompted by the opposition) upon passage.<br /><br />More....Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-34769743591209668712009-12-21T18:27:53.414-06:002009-12-21T18:27:53.414-06:00The MWP is known by proxy measures and contemporar...<i>The MWP is known by proxy measures and contemporary reports.</i><br /><br />Contemporary reports being a species of proxy measures themselves. And, as I said, the MWP is a local phenomenon, yet here you are extending it to a global perspective, which is precisely the manner of reasoning you're decrying where you don't care for the conclusions.<br /><br />What's up with that? You're not just being recreationally "querulous" by any chance, are you?<br /><br /><i>Obviously, the dock you drove off of (if that's what you did) did not have a Safe-T-Lip leveler by Rite Hite.</i><br /><br />It did (although not a Rite-Hite one) and the lip was at that point laying on the back of the truck bed. In my distant youth I was unaware that battery-operated forklifts are considerably heavier than those powered by propane.<br /><br />No litigation ensued, IIRC.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-42680461104455402322009-12-21T17:14:35.103-06:002009-12-21T17:14:35.103-06:00Tom
My experience with the cross examination of e...Tom<br /><br />My experience with the cross examination of experts largely concerned social science experts in various types of discrimination and related cases. I can only ever remember crossing one expert in a product liability case involving dock equipment although I did have some interesting deponents in IP cases involving dock equipment including an English professor at Marquette whose scholarship including the examination of the etiology and uses of F***.<br /><br />As for tree rings and natural law, what can I say? As your good friend Charlie Sykes recognizes, I am a Renaissance Man.<br /><br />The MWP is known by proxy measures and contemporary reports. But my point is not that proxy measures are no good, it's that they are just that - proxies with an incredibly complicated relationship with what they are intended to serve as a proxy for.<br /><br />And, of course, the problems that I discussed in part 4 are not just with Briffa's tree rings, but also with the more aggressive claims made for multi-proxy reconstructions.<br /><br />Obviously, the dock you drove off of (if that's what you did) did not have a Safe-T-Lip leveler by Rite Hite.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-84147528444974267862009-12-21T17:03:15.715-06:002009-12-21T17:03:15.715-06:00Seth
I don't know why you would expect the ec...Seth<br /><br />I don't know why you would expect the economic projections that Congress commissions to paper over the difficulties with what it wants to do to have any connection with reality. They never do. <br /><br />In addition - as with your emphasis on the 17% reduction by 2020 - you ignore the fact that the real reductions are backloaded. The economic impacts of Waxman-Markey can hardly be expected to occur before its more onerous goals come into play. Your burden, Seth, is to think that we can commit - today - to reducing emissions by 83% (which is what the bill calls for) in fourty years without significant economic impact.<br /><br />And there are other studies. Heritage, for example, predicts the following impacts by 2035 - when you will have to be paying for me to play shuffleboard before taking in the Early Bird special:<br /><br />•Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,<br />•Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,<br />•Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,<br />•Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,<br />•Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,<br />•Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and<br />•Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.I have no problem with the concept of developing alternative sources of energy but think it is unlikely - and would be relatively ahistorical - if they were to be developed by command.<br /><br />The ACCF/NAM study is equally <a href="http://www.accf.org/media/docs/nam/2009/National.pdf" rel="nofollow">dire</a>.<br /><br />I know that you'll want to dismiss Heritage and ACCR/NAM as "biased"<br />but they are no more or less subject to biases than the CBO and EPA.<br /><br /><br />Until these technologies are in hand, a commitment to dramatic emission reductions is a commitment to reduce economic activity.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing in your description of the Copenhagen denouement which is inconsistent with the description of kicking a can down the road. Maybe someday the Chinese and Indians will agree to something and actually do it. But the notion that they have been manuevered into doing something that they do not wish to do is wishful thinking. Whether they are "developing" or not, they are not going to forego full entry into modernity.<br /><br />It may well be that technology will permit the substantial cleansing and replacement of fossil fuel. But it is highly unlikely to happen because someone passed a bill mandating that it be so.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-33531608926885875652009-12-21T16:27:59.792-06:002009-12-21T16:27:59.792-06:00I am aware of the 2:1 comment but I think it was a...<i>I am aware of the 2:1 comment but I think it was at a press conference and not included in the report. That type of estimate - clients ask lawyers to do it all the time - strikes me as a SWAG. I think this is particularly true of the higher IPCC numbers - the notion that one could have a 90% confidence level in reconstruction of global temperatures over such a long period of time strikes me as not "plausible."</i><br /><br />The only one presenting a wild ass guess in this comment, Rick, is you. Really, where are <a href="http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/clips/weekend-update-really/1156898/" rel="nofollow">Seth and Amy</a> when you need them? <br /><br /><i>That's a nice attempt to describe kicking the can down the road as a significant development. </i><br /><br />That's a nice attempt to dismiss my detailed explanation of the significance and citations with a casual metaphor.<br /><br /><i>A 17% reduction in emissions could have quite an impact. Imagine if you were asked to reduce your energy usage by 17%. Then think of that it would be like to make that number work ten years from now after you have moved to a bigger home and you and wife have had a couple of kids.</i><br /><br />A cut in fossil fuel emissions isn't the same as requiring an equivalent cut in energy usage. In fact, energy usage will go up. Slowing the growth in energy usage is important, but the bigger key is changing the energy source from fossil fuels to renewable energies (including wind, solar, biomass, MSW, hydro/geothermal, and nuclear) . <br /><br /><a href="http://www.pewclimate.org/acesa/costs" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> a summary of two economic reports on the impact of the Waxman/Markey bill (CBO and EPA), including such things as impact on the deficit (reduces it by $24.4 billion by 2019), average household costs (about $16 per month by 2020), gas prices ($0.13 in 2015, $0.25 in 2030, and $0.69 in 2050), and electricity costs (unchanged by 2020, increase 13% by 2030). <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/HR2454_Analysis.pdf" rel="nofollow">EPA report</a> is especially useful in mapping out the <i>how</i> question as it relates to slowing the growth in energy demand and decreasing reliance on fossil fuels.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-47595990109513071872009-12-21T15:40:04.250-06:002009-12-21T15:40:04.250-06:00I should add: And a very Merry Christmas to all th...I should add: And a very Merry Christmas to all the Sharkian lurkers and their friends and family, from your friendly neighborhood devoutly militant secular humanist.<br /><br />I'll light a candle for you all at Midnight Mass on Thursday night.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-45429051106798832062009-12-21T15:07:50.603-06:002009-12-21T15:07:50.603-06:00Merry Christmas to you too.
By the way, I forgot...Merry Christmas to you too. <br /><br />By the way, I forgot earlier to congratulate you on that brilliant rhetorical device, whereby you momentarily descend from the rarified, brain-busting metaphysical contemplations of "natural law" and the like to entertain the mugs with a few prosaic thoughts on "tree rings."<br /><br /><i>Presenting two different measures as one is not defensible.</i><br /><br />But, Rick, far more than two different measures were presented as one. That's what they've always done. And this was not news to policymakers either.<br /><br />Pursuant to which, I'll ask you once more, since you didn't answer, preferring instead to once again allude to your considerable experience defending against the alleged liabilities of dock-leveler manufacturers:* <br /><br />If the divergence noted in Briffa's very specific series of proxy measurements undermines proxy measurements in general, then from whence in the world comes your pronouncements on the "medieval warming period," the evidence of which is derived <i>entirely</i> from proxy data?<br /><br />The foregoing, incidentally, is but one of several questions posed by myself and Seth which you haven't engaged.<br /><br />* Ask me about the time I drove an electric forklift onto the back of a single-axle flatbed truck.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-6874269073948569022009-12-21T14:33:37.358-06:002009-12-21T14:33:37.358-06:00Seth
Seth
I am aware of the 2:1 comment but I thi...Seth<br />Seth<br /><br />I am aware of the 2:1 comment but I think it was at a press conference and not included in the report. That type of estimate - clients ask lawyers to do it all the time - strikes me as a SWAG. I think this is particularly true of the higher IPCC numbers - the notion that one could have a 90% confidence level in reconstruction of global temperatures over such a long period of time strikes me as not "plausible."<br /><br />In any event, none of the likely or plausible scenarios establish that the temperatures today are hotter than in the MWP. And that does threaten to turn the hockey stick that looks something more like a boomerang.<br /><br />That's a nice attempt to describe kicking the can down the road as a significant development. If the agreement leads to significant emission reductions, it will because of commitments that have not yet been made.<br /><br />A 17% reduction in emissions could have quite an impact. Imagine if you were asked to reduce your energy usage by 17%. Then think of that it would be like to make that number work ten years from now after you have moved to a bigger home and you and wife have had a couple of kids.<br /><br />But maybe a 17% reduction would not be devastating. I think it more than plausible than an 80% reduction by 2050 (called for both by Obama and Waxman-Markey would be.<br /><br />Tom<br /><br />Presenting two different measures as one is not defensible. I have no idea why you want to waste so much time and energy claiming that it is. Since we have now established that you are happily practicing law, I think we both know what you'd do with an expert who tried that. I think I've explained why I think that the e-mails are significant and why I am not moved to turn out the lights by paleoclimatology - and learned a lot in the process. I certainly have tried to deal with more than simply the claims of the "denialist" blogs as I hope you pay attention to more than the "warmist" blogs.<br /><br /><br />I'll probably blog more on this later. For now, Merry Christmas.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-60720158922190744952009-12-21T11:53:12.265-06:002009-12-21T11:53:12.265-06:00Beneath the torrent of verbiage copied and pasted ...Beneath the torrent of verbiage copied and pasted from denialist blogs, Prof. Esenberg's core concern appears to be that scientists -- as he put it -- "combin[ed] two different measurements and pretend[ed] they are the same thing and mischaracteriz[ed] what data show."<br /><br />And, he claims, the said "pretending" and "mischaracterizations" were presented to policymakers, which is what seems to irk Prof. Esenberg in particular.<br /><br />His purported evidence is two charts, one on the cover of a World Meteorological Organization brochure (the specific object of Phil Jones's "hide the decline" e-mail message) and another from the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Chapter 2.<br /><br />But the research underlying what the charts portray is entirely defensible (as is, by extension, the decision to leave off Briffa's data set between 1960 and 1980), is widely and extensively discussed in the primary literature, and, most importantly, has been successfully reproduced by other researchers using entirely separate data even in the wake of McKitrick and McIntyre's objections.<br /><br />So I'm not sure where this leaves Prof. Esenberg. On a hill, certainly, and at least on life support, evidently.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-43461090622376680582009-12-21T10:33:31.961-06:002009-12-21T10:33:31.961-06:00Which leads us to...
As far as how I would charac...Which leads us to...<br /><br /><i>As far as how I would characterize the Copenhagen process, it pretty much fell apart, no?</i><br /><br />No, actually. In fact, the accord struck represents a significant shift from the provisions of Kyoto in which a pre-set cut in emissions was determined up front and then responsibility for those cuts were divided among developed nations. It was that latter provision -- responsibility all on developed nations -- that prevented the US Congress from ratifying the Kyoto treaty. <br /><br />The Copenhagen accord rests on a different system in which nations bring to the table pledges of emissions cuts -- the US was 17% of '05 levels, the EU was 20% of '90 levels, etc. -- and points toward the use of accountability measures such as independent emissions checks to verify progress. Perhaps most important, though, is that the accord <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1949054,00.html" rel="nofollow">moves China</a> and other larger developing nations (India, Brazil, and South Africa being the others) from behind their protected status of "developing" under Kyoto, bringing them into the fray when it comes to responsibility for cuts. This will be critical for gaining US congressional approval for any eventual binding treating and, ultimately, the success of that treaty (w/o cuts from China, there's no way -- economically or scientifically -- all of the other countries combined could any significant headway on cuts).<br /><br />This was a tentative development, but an important one. The talks were falling apart toward the end of last week, but Obama was able to strike this accord (something the smaller developing nations who China essentially ditched <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30597.html" rel="nofollow">were afraid</a> would happen) that both kept the ball in the air for a binding treaty next year AND for that binding treaty to exemplify something the US can support and something that is a more realistic blueprint for global cooperation on emissions cuts (rather than using "developing" as a get out of jail free card).<br /><br /><i>Obama has, from time to time, endorsed emission reductions which, without some technological miracle (which he assumes), would be economically devastating.</i><br /><br />Please explain how the 17% emissions cuts from '05 levels by 2020 proposed by Obama and included in the Waxman/Markey bill that passed in the summer would be "economically devastating," particularly when coming within the global system explained above (that is, Copenhagen-based rather than Kyoto-based).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-31415930642658467992009-12-21T10:29:14.487-06:002009-12-21T10:29:14.487-06:00I would just note that your comments here are simp...<i>I would just note that your comments here are simply the assertion that I am wrong and that some unexplained authority elsewhere proves it.</i><br /><br />No, Rick. I provided a link to my own comments and analysis. I don't see the need to rehash them here since you don't provide anything new in this post. <br /><br />The closest you come to providing something new is citing two reports, and I provided links to refute the way you use them.<br /><br />But, if links aren't enough, you want my analysis, here it is.<br /><br />The IPCC <a href="http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm" rel="nofollow">TAR</a> Summary for Policymakers that used the hockey stick graph explained the long stick part of the graph this way: "New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the increase in temperature in the 20th century is LIKELY to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" (emphasis mine).<br /><br />If you look at the footnote tied to "likely," it <a href="http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fnspm.htm#7" rel="nofollow">defines it</a> as "66-90% chance."<br /><br />The Wegman report DIDN'T assess the question of whether that claim or the hockey stick reconstruction as a whole is accurate, as my link in the comment above explains.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676" rel="nofollow">NAS Report</a> DID assess that claim and the hockey stick reconstruction as a whole, finding high confidence in the post-1600 portion of the graph and "plausible" the pre-1600 portion, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html" rel="nofollow">defining plausible</a> as 66% likelihood, which falls into the same range (albeit the bottom) as the IPCC TAR.<br /><br /><i>It also is not resolved by repeating the physics of greenhouse gases. That describes a circumstance in which all other influences are held constant and ignores countervailing impacts. It doesn't tell us how significant the problem is and what we can do about it. It's an important starting point, but that's what it is.</i><br /><br />I didn't intend for it to be the ending point, only an explanation for how paleoclimatology isn't required for the science of AGW.<br /><br />As Rahmstorf <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/" rel="nofollow">continues</a>:<br /><br /><i>But how strong is this warming effect? That is the only fundamental doubt about anthropogenic climate change that can still be legitimately debated. We climatologists describe this in terms of the climate sensitivity, the warming that results in equilibrium from a doubling of CO2. The IPCC gives the uncertainty range as 1.5-4.5 ºC. Only if this is wrong, and the true value is lower, can we escape the fact that unabated emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to the warming projected by the IPCC.<br /><br />Chances for that are not good. A new large uncertainty analysis that appeared this week in Nature shows that it is very difficult to get a climate sensitivity below 2 ºC in a climate model, no matter how one changes the parameters. And climate history, with its Ice Ages and other large changes, also speaks strongly against low climate sensitivity.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://climateprediction.net/science/pubs/nature_first_results.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> a link to the Nature study Rahmstorf cites.<br /><br />I am interested in knowing more about how your "countervailing impacts" either weren't considered by or outweigh the uncertainty studies, like this one in Nature, completed by climatologists. <br /><br />Bottom line, the strength of the warming effect is critical -- that's the ending point. Climatologists have laid out the benchmark of limiting climate increases to 2 degrees Celsius per year, which would require 25-40% cuts in emissions.<br /><br />More...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-49131835610295434742009-12-21T09:47:06.868-06:002009-12-21T09:47:06.868-06:00By the way, I happened to catch about 30 seconds o...By the way, I happened to catch about 30 seconds of <i>Sunday Incite!</i> yesterday. Charlie Sykes asked Patrick McIlheran for his "biggest blunder of 2009" and McIlheran said, 'Writing e-mails that completely undermine the case for global warming,' or words to that effect.<br /><br />Sykes leaned forward enthusiastically and cried, "Tricks! To hide the decline!"<br /><br />Unfortunately nobody was present to point out McIlheran's own blunder, that he doesn't even know what was meant by "the decline."illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-14821146561022136432009-12-21T09:36:24.901-06:002009-12-21T09:36:24.901-06:00If the Briffa (not Biffra) et al 1998b data set ca...If the Briffa (not Biffra) et al 1998b data set casts doubt on all other proxy data sets, then how can you have such great confidence in your MWP and LIA indicators?<br /><br />(Both were local, as opposed to global phenomena, if I'm not mistaken. The debate isn't over anthropogenic European warming, after all.)<br /><br />As for Wegman:<br /><br />"The impact of the MM critique, after being scrutinized by the NAS, the Wegman panel, and a number of meticulous individual research groups, is essentially nil with regard to the conclusions of MBH and the 2001 IPCC assessment."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.pewclimate.org/what_s_being_done/in_the_congress/7_27_06.cfm" rel="nofollow">Testimony of Jay Gulledge</a>.<br /><br />Seth's unanswered <a href="http://sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-id-die-on-this-hill-part-3.html?showComment=1261019196497#c4263088801822838079" rel="nofollow">entreaty</a> in the previous thread gets to the very heart of the matter:<br /><br />"Explain why a hypothesis w/ no research backing it up is somehow trumps a hypothesis w/ cited research, even if the conclusions of that research aren't themselves conclusive."<br /><br />And, McIntyre in a nutshell:<br /><br />"The problem with treating tree ring chronologies as nothing more than received time series downloaded from the internet to be manipulated in various ways is that the context of the original investigators can be lost. Moreover, there are several subdisciplines within dendrochronology that collect tree ring data for different reasons, and in their fieldwork emphasize different site or individual tree characteristics during sampling."<br /><br /><a href="http://delayedoscillator.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/yamal-emulation-ii-divergence/" rel="nofollow">Yamal Emulation II: Divergence</a>.<br /><br />In other contexts, Prof. Esenberg would refer to McIntyre's activities as "ankle biting," but for some reason in the present context, they're entirely compelling.illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-67754991964949985032009-12-21T09:27:09.614-06:002009-12-21T09:27:09.614-06:00Seth
I'll post more on this later. I would ju...Seth<br /><br />I'll post more on this later. I would just note that your comments here are simply the assertion that I am wrong and that some unexplained authority elsewhere proves it. I've read the commentary at Real Climate; my conclusions are based on the "primary documents" (which is what you all keep telling me to do.)<br /><br />My point is not that the temperature has not increased. It is only that it seems impossible to say that it is warmer today than it was in the MWP. That has certain implications for the debate, but it doesn't resolve it.<br /><br />It also is not resolved by repeating the physics of greenhouse gases. That describes a circumstance in which all other influences are held constant and ignores countervailing impacts. It doesn't tell us how significant the problem is and what we can do about it. It's an important starting point, but that's what it is.<br /><br />As far as how I would characterize the Copenhagen process, it pretty much fell apart, no? Obama has, from time to time, endorsed emission reductions which, without some technological miracle (which he assumes), would be economically devastating. He believes that government can create and manage a carbon trading system. (One of my principal problems with Obama is the extent to which he seems to believe problems can be solved and managed by the imposition of expertise from above.)Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-38710350143035907432009-12-21T07:00:22.932-06:002009-12-21T07:00:22.932-06:00A couple of quick additions on the paleoclimatolog...A couple of quick additions on the paleoclimatology debate. For more on the Wegman hearing, see <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328" rel="nofollow">here</a>. For more on the NAS report, see <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/06/national-academies-synthesis-report/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Each are particularly instructive for those who are wondering about Rick's point about those studies bringing into question the hockey stick reconstruction as a whole, as opposed to just Mann's contribution to it (hint: they don't).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-18624735132099316092009-12-20T20:14:56.414-06:002009-12-20T20:14:56.414-06:00For new readers interested in more on the paleocli...For new readers interested in more on the paleoclimatology debate, see the discussion <a href="http://sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-id-die-on-this-hill-part-3.html?showComment=1260851003309#c2670200845828262649" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Nothing new was presented in this post, I don't see the reason for re-hashing to same responses (though, for those looking to see the full versions of what Tom and I say -- rather than Rick's summaries here -- please check it out).<br /><br /><i>On a highly complex question, it would seem to lower our confidence in - at least - the more alarmist views of AGW.</i><br /><br />This is probably the heart of the problem, Rick.<br /><br />1) As I mentioned <a href="http://sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com/2009/12/why-id-die-on-this-hill-part-3.html?showComment=1260984642974#c2319191050549312123" rel="nofollow">before</a>, AGW doesn't rely on paleoclimatology for evidence of its existence or importance. For those who don't care to follow the link, the climatologist Stefan Rahmstorf <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/" rel="nofollow">explains</a> (almost 5 years ago and before this email 'controversy,' no less):<br /><br /><i>The main reason for concern about anthropogenic climate change is not that we can already see it (although we can). The main reason is twofold. <br />(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch “climate skeptics”. <br />(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.</i><br /><br />2) Please explain how the US negotiations in Copenhagen, and the resulting accord, reflect alarmism.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11081090991792512397noreply@blogger.com