Emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change

[-1=e^ipi]

All the people going on and on about 2 C being the threshold for dangerous climate change.

 

Looks like 3 C is the new 2 C.

 

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-100-2016.pdf&site=24

[Michael Hardner]

Well, economic impact is the least certain aspect of climate change because you are measuring the impact of CO2, on temperatures, the impact of climate change on the economy, ie. the impact of an impact.  Its also the least discussed aspect on here.

[eyeball]

And yet the impact to the economy from addressing the human causes behind climate change is constantly underscored on here. To wit, the economy will be destroyed - apparently an even worse fate than runaway warming.

[Guest]

I think it's the impact to the economy from addressing the human causes behind climate change without actually helping that are constantly underscored on here. 

There are only two things that can be done to prevent runaway warming.  Forced sterilization and a massive all encompassing move to nuclear power.  (Or do without, I guess)

I always figure it's the ones who want to stop pipelines and shut down oil sands are the true deniers.  They can't really believe it's happening if that's their response.

[-1=e^ipi]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

And yet the impact to the economy from addressing the human causes behind climate change is constantly underscored on here. To wit, the economy will be destroyed - apparently an even worse fate than runaway warming.

 

Runaway global warming is not physical for earth, at least not for 2 billion years. We would need a much brighter sun to get feedbacks large enough for runaway warming.

 

Yes, there will be warming, but not runaway. That's the mainstream scientific position.

[Bonam]

3 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Runaway global warming is not physical for earth, at least not for 2 billion years. We would need a much brighter sun to get feedbacks large enough for runaway warming.

 

Yes, there will be warming, but not runaway. That's the mainstream scientific position.

It would be runaway past about 15-20C change relative to now. Right now, ocean surface temperatures max out at about 35C. If ocean surface temperatures started to exceed 50-55C in some areas, the evaporation rate of water from those areas would increase rapidly, as the evaporation rate of water is nonlinear with temperature and increases rapidly above 50C. Water vapor is also a powerful greenhouse gas, meaning that as the oceans started to evaporate, heating rate would only increase further, causing a runaway effect. 

But hopefully we'll never get anywhere close to the 15-20C increase relative to now, so hopefully the evaporation of the oceans will never be a real threat. 

[-1=e^ipi]

@ Bonam - I think this link was taken down: http://climatephys.org/2012/07/31/the-water-vapor-feedback-and-runaway-greenhouse/

But from what I recall, it demonstrated that runaway warming doesn't occur until 647 K, when the oceans would start to boil. Even though water boils at 100 C, by the time global temperatures would get to 100 C, pressure increases, which increases the boiling point further. Runaway global warming can also occur in 2 billion years when the brightness of the sun increases sufficiently.

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

If ocean surface temperatures started to exceed 50-55C in some areas, the evaporation rate of water from those areas would increase rapidly, as the evaporation rate of water is nonlinear with temperature and increases rapidly above 50C.

The amount of water air can contain increases roughly exponentially via the clausius-clapeyron relation. But the radiative forcing due to water vapour concentrations is roughly a logarithmic function of concentrations. So the water vapour feedback is roughly linear.

 

If you still think runaway global warming would occur from increasing global temperatures by 15-20 C, then do you have a source or calculations that can support it?

[Bonam]

52 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

@ Bonam - I think this link was taken down: http://climatephys.org/2012/07/31/the-water-vapor-feedback-and-runaway-greenhouse/

But from what I recall, it demonstrated that runaway warming doesn't occur until 647 K, when the oceans would start to boil. Even though water boils at 100 C, by the time global temperatures would get to 100 C, pressure increases, which increases the boiling point further. Runaway global warming can also occur in 2 billion years when the brightness of the sun increases sufficiently.

The amount of water air can contain increases roughly exponentially via the clausius-clapeyron relation. But the radiative forcing due to water vapour concentrations is roughly a logarithmic function of concentrations. So the water vapour feedback is roughly linear.

 

If you still think runaway global warming would occur from increasing global temperatures by 15-20 C, then do you have a source or calculations that can support it?

That's true about pressure increasing as well. Though the atmosphere would be unbreathable for humans long before that point, in any case. Seems that humans can't breathe normal air much past 10 atmospheres or so, and have to breathe special gas mixtures. Meanwhile the boiling temperature you mention of 647K corresponds to what, ~250 atmospheres? About as hot and dense as Venus, at that point, so by the time you get to 647k you've long since lost the battle to prevent it from running away  If you're definition of running away is that it will continue to increase indefinitely, then there is no temperature at which it will do that since radiative losses to space scale with T^4 and there are no feedback phenomena that are faster than that across a large range of temperatures, and in any case the Earth's effective surface temperature could never exceed that of the Sun. 

You're right that on billion year timescales the Sun's brightness will increase leading to warming that way but that is of course a bit tangential to the debate regarding climate change, which in the human context is on decade-century timescales. 

I don't have calculations to back up the 15-20C claim, more just a hypothesis based on the increasing evaporation rates of water at that point. Water just doesn't stick around long at temperatures exceeding 50C, The oceans don't have to boil to evaporate away. Even if the temperature doesn't actually run away to exceed the boiling point, an Earth without liquid surface water is a dead Earth. 

[-1=e^ipi]

On 12/1/2016 at 2:40 AM, Bonam said:

If you're definition of running away is that it will continue to increase indefinitely

 

Usually runaway would be defined as a point where the increase in temperature due to feedbacks from a temperature increase exceed the temperature increase itself. If this occurs locally (and by local I mean within a local range of global temperature values) then it would count as runaway warming without needing to have temperatures increase indefinitely.

 

On 12/1/2016 at 2:40 AM, Bonam said:

I don't have calculations to back up the 15-20C claim, more just a hypothesis based on the increasing evaporation rates of water at that point. Water just doesn't stick around long at temperatures exceeding 50C, The oceans don't have to boil to evaporate away. Even if the temperature doesn't actually run away to exceed the boiling point, an Earth without liquid surface water is a dead Earth. 

You also have to remember that different parts of the earth warm at different rates. Equatorial regions tend to warm at only 2/3 the rate of the global temperature.

But in any case, runaway global warming is not physical. There are amplifying feedbacks, they just are not strong enough to cause runaway global warming.

 

Edit: sorry for typo

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[Argus]

On 11/30/2016 at 0:39 PM, bcsapper said:

I think it's the impact to the economy from addressing the human causes behind climate change without actually helping that are constantly underscored on here. 

That puts it quite accurately and succinctly. As an example, the recent investigation by Ontario's Auditor General and of the provinces environment commissioner point out Ontario's new cap and trade program in carbon reduction shows it will cost the residents of Ontario about $8 billion in its first years of operation. Yet since it links with California and Quebec, it will be unlikely to do much to reduce Ontario's CO2 emissions since people will simply buy carbon credits from California, where they are cheaper. All the system will mean is big polluters paying California for carbon credits, and then passing the cost along in the prices of their products and services.

[-1=e^ipi]

With respect to Ontario's insanely stupid energy policy, I saw it claimed recently that the cost to reduce emissions for Ontario has been about $250 per metric ton. This is all through the 'regulatory approach' that Steven Harper seemed to advocate during the last general. A tax, or even cap-and-trade, are far more cost effective.

[Argus]

27 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

With respect to Ontario's insanely stupid energy policy, I saw it claimed recently that the cost to reduce emissions for Ontario has been about $250 per metric ton. This is all through the 'regulatory approach' that Steven Harper seemed to advocate during the last general. A tax, or even cap-and-trade, are far more cost effective.

Please explain how much Ontario emissions will be reduced by purchasing tax credits from California?

[-1=e^ipi]

Hey, I don't support cap-and-trade either. Taxing CO2 emissions makes more sense.

 

But in it's defense, if emissions are more expensive, due to having to buy credits, then there is a lower incentive to emit CO2, thus you get less emissions. Also, what matters is global emissions, so trading credits between different states/provinces is not unreasonable if it allows emissions to be reduced at a lower cost.

 

Of course, what Wynne wants to do is implement cap-and-trade on top of the regulatory approach already implemented. As opposed to replace the regulatory approach with cap-and-trade.

 

I'm just saying that in comparison to the idiotic regulatory approaches that reduce emissions at $250 per ton CO2, a cap-and-trade system with a $15/ton CO2 cost, or even a $50/ton level that Trudeau wants to implement is far more cost effective.

 

We need to stop banning pipelines, stop banning coal plants, stop subsidizing renewable energy, and instead just have a single pigouvian tax to internalize the externalities of CO2 emissions. That's the most cost effective way to do things.

[Argus]

On 12/2/2016 at 4:15 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

Hey, I don't support cap-and-trade either. Taxing CO2 emissions makes more sense.

But in it's defense, if emissions are more expensive, due to having to buy credits, then there is a lower incentive to emit CO2, thus you get less emissions.

They just pass the cost on to customers. Of course, companies in foreign countries which don't have to pay any sort of carbon fee - which is most of them - can then sell their products/services here cheaper. Which will help encourage Canadian companies to move elsewhere.

[-1=e^ipi]

39 minutes ago, Argus said:

They just pass the cost on to customers. Of course, companies in foreign countries which don't have to pay any sort of carbon fee - which is most of them - can then sell their products/services here cheaper. Which will help encourage Canadian companies to move elsewhere.

 

Are you arguing that the elasticity of demand for goods and services that consume fossil fuels is zero? Because the empirical literature clearly disagrees.

[Argus]

On 12/3/2016 at 5:10 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

 

Are you arguing that the elasticity of demand for goods and services that consume fossil fuels is zero? Because the empirical literature clearly disagrees.

I'm saying that if a Canadian widget maker has to pay a carbon tax but the one in Michigan does not then that gives the Michigan widget maker an advantage in pricing.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Argus

[-1=e^ipi]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

I'm saying that if a Canadian widget maker has to pay a carbon tax but the one in Michigan does not then that gives the Michigan widget maker an advantage in pricing.

Yes it does. But the effect of a tax on CO2 emissions isn't as simple as 'all costs are passed on to consumers". In reality, the tax will increase the price paid by consumers and reduce the price received by producers and the amount of the tax burden that goes to consumers vs producers depends on the elasticities of demand and supply. And since demand and supply are not completely elastic, there is an overall lower level of CO2 emissions.

[Argus]

On 12/4/2016 at 6:07 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

Yes it does. But the effect of a tax on CO2 emissions isn't as simple as 'all costs are passed on to consumers". In reality, the tax will increase the price paid by consumers and reduce the price received by producers and the amount of the tax burden that goes to consumers vs producers depends on the elasticities of demand and supply. And since demand and supply are not completely elastic, there is an overall lower level of CO2 emissions.

You can reduce the use of anything by raising the price, but on a world scale the reduction or even elimination of ALL CO2 production in Canada would be statistically insignificant and will have absolutely zero affect on global warming.

The impact on our economy, however, from carbon taxes, will be quite noticeable.

 

Edited December 10, 2016 by Argus

[-1=e^ipi]

21 hours ago, Argus said:

You can reduce the use of anything by raising the price, but on a world scale the reduction or even elimination of ALL CO2 production in Canada would be statistically insignificant and will have absolutely zero affect on global warming.

That's bullshit. Canada could reduce global warming by a few thousandths of a degree Celcius by reducing CO2 emissions.

[Argus]

A column about the falsehoods told by the climate industry points out the hypocrisy involved in the international 'fight to reduce CO2 emissoins', notably that most of the signatories subsidies fossil fuel use and that despite the hundreds of billions invested, solar and wind power account for only about 1.5% of global energy supplied. Also, only a few countries have actually promised to cut back, with goals set.

• While 111 countries represented at the November, 2016, Marrakech Climate Change conference supported a proclamation calling for “the highest political commitment to combat climate change,” the real-world facts paint a far different picture. My December column pointed out that only countries with a combined global emission share of 17 per cent had any intention of honouring that proclamation. And since none of those are significant trading partners, imposing a carbon tax to reduce Canada’s minuscule 1.6 per cent of global emissions is simply economic suicide.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economic-insight/three-post-truths-about-global-energy-and-climate-change/article33465520/

[drummindiver]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 4:46 PM, -1=e^ipi said:

That's bullshit. Canada could reduce global warming by a few thousandths of a degree Celcius by reducing CO2 emissions.

Bullshit. No concrete science can establish that.

I am a skeptic anyways,   and there seems  to be more support  for skepticism than msm seems to be talking about.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/03/1000-skeptical-peer-reviewed-climate-papers-should-put-un-ipcc-to-shame-says-harvard-astrophysicist/#sthash.ygrz11P4.NHKqX4QA.dpbs

[-1=e^ipi]

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601207.full

 

Great new paper by Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan and others on bias in sea surface temperature data set trends due to changing method of measurement. The bias due to changing from buckets to engine room intake, particularly during WW2, was corrected for. Good to see that the change from engine room intake from bouys has now been properly corrected for as well. Edit: or more accurately, it was already corrected for by NOAA, the paper just tests to see if the adjustments done by NOAA are justified.

 

In addition to recently correcting for other biases, such as coverage bias, bias due to not properly accounting for seasonal change from sea ice to ocean, and bias due to using sea surface temperature to represent the temperature of air slightly above the surface, it looks like the 'pause' is now more dead than ever.

Edited January 7, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Here is an explanation by Zeke:

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

By comparison, Zeke Hausfather in Science Magazine, cited above by -1=e:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(magazine)

Science was a general science magazine published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). It was intended to "bridge the distance between science and citizen", aimed at a technically literate audience who may not work professionally in the sciences. The AAAS also publishes the famous science journalScience, the similar name leading to some confusion.

Zeke Hausfather

Zeke is an energy systems analyst and environmental economist with a strong interest in conservation and efficiency. He was previously the chief scientist at C3, an energy management and efficiency company. He also cofounded Efficiency 2.0, a behavior-based energy efficiency company. He received a bachelor’s degree from Grinnell College, a master’s degree in environmental science from Vrije Universiteit in the Netherlands, and another master’s degree in environmental management from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He has published papers in the fields of environmental economics, energy modeling, and climate science.

https://scholar.google.ca/citations?user=Chq-VAIAAAAJ&hl=en

[drummindiver]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

notrickzone.com ?

 

 

Quoted from Dr Patrick Moore.  Villain of the left but with exceptional bona fides and morals intact.