Emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change

[-1=e^ipi]

It's quite long though. From what I can tell, the Ramsey equation is fairly well accepted in economic literature. Although there are some exceptions (such as the Stern report, which uses a 0.1% discount rate).

Here is an even longer discussion paper by Arrow, Nordhaus, Tol, Weitzman and some other economics on the discount rate.

http://rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-12-53.pdf

It discusses ways of empirically measuring the discount rate and μ, as well as various economic bases for the discount rate decreasing over time.

I don't suggest anyone in this thread read it though, since it probably isn't worth your time. However, it does mention that the Obama administration uses a 2.5% discount rate for the benefits of mitigation policy and a 3% discount rate for the costs of mitigation policy, which makes absolutely no sense.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe a global tax of around $15 per metric ton of CO2, which increases exponentially at a rate of about 3% per year, would make sense. This is based on the results of this thread plus the results of Nordhaus' DICE model. What you do with all that tax revenue, I have no idea.

What is the % rate for the tax then for Canada ?

Waldo has been convinced since the beginning that I am a 'concern troll' and will never concede a single point.

I don't remember ever seeing him do that.

[-1=e^ipi]

What is the % rate for the tax then for Canada ?

I don't understand the meaning of your question. What do you mean by % rate?

I don't remember ever seeing him do that.

Example: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23149-americans-believe-climate-change-is-real-and-a-real-problem/?p=931124

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand the meaning of your question. What do you mean by % rate?

How do you implement this tax is the question.

Example: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23149-americans-believe-climate-change-is-real-and-a-real-problem/?p=931124

No, I mean I haven't seen him concede a point !

[-1=e^ipi]

How do you implement this tax is the question.

If people emit a ton of CO2 you charge them $X. There are already carbon taxes in BC, most European countries, Australia until Tony Abbot got in, etc.

[Michael Hardner]

If people emit a ton of CO2 you charge them $X. There are already carbon taxes in BC, most European countries, Australia until Tony Abbot got in, etc.

Ok, what does it translate to at the gas pump, do you know ? It's an honest question.

[-1=e^ipi]

Ok, what does it translate to at the gas pump, do you know ? It's an honest question.

Let's see...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline

gasoline has a density of ~0.755 kg/L

1 kg of fuel gives 3.09 kg of CO2

So a $15 per ton of CO2 tax would correspond to a tax of 3.5 cents per litre

[Michael Hardner]

So a $15 per ton of CO2 tax would correspond to a tax of 3.5 cents per litre

That seems pretty small to me. Waldo any objections ?

[-1=e^ipi]

That seems pretty small to me. Waldo any objections ?

To be fair, there are other reasons for a tax, such as the external health affects due to pollution. The 3.5 cents would be what is justified based on climate change.

[-1=e^ipi]

Actually, on second thought it is higher than 3.5 cents per liter since you also need to transport and extract the fuel, which emits CO2 in the process. Not to mention CH4 is also emitted in the process, which is the second most relevant human emitted GHG.

According to here:

http://www.oilsandstoday.ca/topics/ghgemissions/Pages/default.aspx

Once you take these other sources of emissions into account, an average barrel of oil emits an equivalent of 500 kg of CO2.

A barrel of oil is 159 L.

And it takes about 2 barrels of oil to make 1 barrel of gasoline.

So the effective tax rate would be ~9.4 cents per litre.

[-1=e^ipi]

I realized something.

Global energy consumption in 2012 was 5.598 x 10^20 joules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

This corresponds to 1.774 x 10^13 watts.

The radius of the Earth is 6371 km.

This means that on average, global energy consumption is 0.0348 W/m^2.

If climate sensitivity is ~2C and the change in radiative forcing is 3.7 W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2,

then this suggests that the Earth is nearly 0.02 C warmer purely due to the waste heat from all the fossil fuels, nuclear power, etc. that we produce.

[waldo]

Waldo has been convinced since the beginning that I am a 'concern troll'

what's to question?

- you're the guy who continued to speak to the outcome of climate change being positive... more positive than negative. Your most recent effort in that regard was to pump the failed Tol meta-study of 14 papers. You know, the one I burst your bubble on! The paper that Tol was forced to correct (twice!)... where he claimed "gremlins" were at fault in "messing with his calculations"! Corrections that completely reversed the Tol claim that "climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century"! You know... Tol... your go-to economist!

- you're the guy who continues to support a carbon tax... but support that is predicated upon you refusing to accept ANY accompanying mitigation initiatives. To you, and your 'concern-troll' ilk, this fallacious position is nothing more than "the cost of BigOil doing business"!

- you're the guy who natters on about CO2 fertilization and, effectively, your "CO2 is nothing more than plant food" nonsense! You've been shown repeatedly that your CO2 fertilization effect on increasing global staple crop yields HAS NO LEGS! Yet you persist in continuing to use this as a part of your "climate change is more positive than negative" mantra!

- you're the guy who sincerely stated you felt a 1200 ppm CO2 atmospheric level was a good thing... that the sooner we get there, the better!

- you're the guy who continually draws references from the likes of Lomborg, Tol, Crazy Aunt Judy, et al. You know... the poster-crew for "do nothing, delay at all costs".

- you're the guy who selectively and with self-service to your agenda, chooses to pump low(er)... the lowest... climate sensitivity. Imagine that! You're the guy who recently tailored one of your failed paper interpretations based on a single-study - you know, your attachment to "single-study" syndrome. You're the guy who chooses to pump the negative feedback for aerosols notwithstanding it remains one of the most active areas of ongoing scientific research... notwithstanding there is no scientific consensus on the impact of aerosols at this point.

should I go on?

[waldo]

That seems pretty small to me. Waldo any objections ?

ask "Euler" (what's a Euler? ) what accompanying mitigation initiatives he supports? As I've said in the past, as I just stated in my immediately preceding post, this fallacious position to posture support for a carbon tax without any accompanying mitigation efforts is nothing more than putting in place a "cost of doing fossil-fuel business"!

[-1=e^ipi]

Thought I would share this:

Mortality rates are much higher in winter than in summer for basically all countries:

Edited September 8, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Thought I would share this:

Mortality rates are much higher in winter than in summer for basically all countries:

you just know it's coming right? You pull a rather dated article graphic from WTFIUWT... from "renowned" denier Goklany (of current past affiliations with the CATO Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Reason Foundation... on $1000 a month retainer from the Heartland Institute, etc..). Yet somehow you don't bother to include this Goklany gem from that article you're drawing the graphic from: "Unfortunately, our politicians complain about the warmth and would like to make the climate cooler if they could"

[-1=e^ipi]

Do you deny that mortality rates are higher in winter than in summer for the above countries?

Btw, the source is Falagas M E et al.

[-1=e^ipi]

The fact that the winter death rate is higher than the summer death rate is even observed in places like India.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1954.tb01269.x/pdf

See figure 4 for total death rate in Bombay by month.

[Bonam]

The fact that the winter death rate is higher than the summer death rate is even observed in places like India.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1954.tb01269.x/pdf

See figure 4 for total death rate in Bombay by month.

The article is not accessible without paying.

The chart you posted shows death rates spiking slightly in Cyprus and even Greece slightly in summer. And it doesn't include any countries that are really hot. Most of the Earth's population lives in areas which don't get that cold in the winter (or don't really have winter at all) but do have hot temperature extremes. Humans can't survive long term temperatures above 36 C or so, especially not in humid environments. If you warm an area to the point that night time lows don't drop below ~ 36 C, humans cannot survive long term without the aid of technology to provide them with cooler air and/or water. And even coming anywhere close to that causes a lot of death due to prolonged heat stress. It also takes much less technology, and much less energy, to allow humans to survive in a cold environment than to cool a hot environment.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Bonam

[-1=e^ipi]

The original chart you posted shows the opposite trend in Australia, the only relatively "warm" country on the list.

Australia and New Zealand are in the southern hemisphere.

Humans can't survive long term temperatures above 36 C or so, especially not in humid environments.

My understanding is that global average temperatures would have to rise by at least 7 C for this to start occurring in tropical regions (since tropical regions warm slower than the global average).

This means that atmospheric CO2 would have to be more than quadruple pre-industrial levels (given a reasonable level of climate sensitivity and including other GHGs). So we are talking like 1100 + ppm of CO2.

[-1=e^ipi]

Higher rates of death in winter vs summer are observed in Hong Kong:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4439064/

Is Hong Kong 'cold'?

Edited September 8, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Do you deny that mortality rates are higher in winter than in summer for the above countries?

Btw, the source is Falagas M E et al.

you've not said what point you're attempting to make here... so, yes... I took the freebee you lobbed up! Your graphic is sourced exactly as I stated... and I included the denier Golkany's key phrasing in that regard. Now, if you truly want to speak to the actual origination of that graphic... which begs the question why you didn't source the graphic from the study proper... then you must also include these key points from the actual study, with its health care emphasis:

Mortality in the general population declines in the late summer to early fall months in the countries evaluated. Environmental parameters may partly account for these associations, and further research is needed on the contribution of additional factors such as summer vacations.

Large-scale population studies have shown seasonal variation in mortality rates from various causes in different parts of the world. It has been observed that mortality peaks during the cold winter months. This observation has led to investigations of the specific causes of death that account for the excess mortality in winter and the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. Human behavioural patterns, socioeconomic factors and environmental parameters are thought to be related to seasonal variations in mortality. The elucidation of such associations can aid in the organization of relevant public health services.

The fact that many vulnerable individuals could die during summer heat waves could partly explain the lower mortality observed in September in the Mediterranean countries. However, we could not retrieve cause-specific monthly mortality data for the evaluated countries to examine this hypothesis. Improvements in housing conditions, which have led to less variability in indoor temperature with weather changes, could relate to diminishing seasonal variability in mortality.

We speculate that summer vacations may also contribute to the lower mortality observed in September in the Mediterranean countries. Vacations can have both physiologic and psychological effects. Greater exposure to sunlight leads to increased synthesis of vitamin D, which may have beneficial effects for cardiovascular disease, renal failure, certain malignant diseases, autoimmune disorders and infections, including influenza. The positive psychological effects of vacations consist of ameliorating mood, decreasing mental stress and providing a sense of recuperation and well-being, that may last for at least a month after the vacation. Although the underlying mechanisms remain largely elusive, depressive mood and disappointing, untoward or stressful events have been associated with an increased risk of death, particularly from cardiovascular causes.

Differences in climate across different geographical regions could also explain the monthly mortality patterns observed in this study. Of note, coronary artery disease mortality in Los Angeles County, California, which has a milder climate compared with other US regions that resemble that of the Mediterranean countries, reaches its lowest level in September. Relevant data from northern European countries are in general agreement with our findings. Specifically, a study that jointly examined mortality data in England and Wales, the Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal showed that cardiovascular mortality was lowest at the end of August, and that mortality from all other causes was lowest in August through September.4 All-cause mortality reaches the lowest level during the August–September period in Germany. Mortality from cardiovascular disease in Norway and Ireland is lowest in August. In our study, we did not focus on these countries because this has previously been evaluated.

Conclusion

Data show that monthly mortality in the general population is lowest in September in the European Mediterranean countries that we evaluated, in March (the counterpart of September in the southern hemisphere) in Australia, in August for Sweden and North America, in February in New Zealand (the counterpart of August) and in July in Japan. These differences in mortality can be, in part, attributed to environmental factors, because adverse weather conditions, particularly excess cold or heat, are associated with greater risk of death. However, other less-appreciated factors may also account for the observed mortality patterns.

again... what was the point you wanted to make here? You're quite vague and elusive in actually putting up a reason/rationale behind your first related post! Is there a problem?

[Bonam]

Australia and New Zealand are in the southern hemisphere.

Yeah I realized my error shortly after posting and fixed it even before you replied. Thanks.

My understanding is that global average temperatures would have to rise by at least 7 C for this to start occurring in tropical regions (since tropical regions warm slower than the global average).

This means that atmospheric CO2 would have to be more than quadruple pre-industrial levels (given a reasonable level of climate sensitivity and including other GHGs). So we are talking like 1100 + ppm of CO2.

The averages hide a lot of local variation. While it might take 1100+ ppm for this to start happening in general "in tropical regions", it is likely that smaller particular areas will experience this sooner. Nor does it need to happen continuously throughout summers... a short heat wave is more than sufficient.

Higher rates of death in winter vs summer is observed in Hong Kong:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC4439064/

Is Hong Kong 'cold'?

Hong Kong is at 22 degrees North. And, it is a technologically advanced city. I'd probably look at places like Malaysia and Indonesia, African countries near the equator, and South American countries near the equator.

[-1=e^ipi]

what was the point you wanted to make here?

I wanted to provide more information.

Hong Kong is at 22 degrees North. And, it is a technologically advanced city. I'd probably look at places like Malaysia and Indonesia, African countries near the equator, and South American countries near the equator.

If you go with equatorial countries, they don't have seasonal variation. So you can't compare summer death rates with winter death rates.

[waldo]

I wanted to provide more information.

to what end? You've not particularly tied this into the thread OP, vis-a-vis emission scenarios, vis-a-vis economic impacts. Notwithstanding, of course, you've taken a graphic from a study and, for all intents and purposes, ignored the focus of that study (on health/health care) and completely ignored the findings from the study authors as to what is, what might be, causing the presentation see within the graphic you linked to.

and... given all this, given you really didn't explicitly source your graphic... and tie it to the study proper, I suggest you're purposely using that graphic without it's proper association to the study. Again, what you did do... what I pointed out... is you sourced that graphic from a renowned denier site from an article interpreting that graphic that has a denier bent to it. Again, let me repeat that lil' gem from the actual article your linked graphic source is aligned with: "Unfortunately, our politicians complain about the warmth and would like to make the climate cooler if they could"

[-1=e^ipi]

Again, let me repeat that lil' gem from the actual article your linked graphic source is aligned with: "Unfortunately, our politicians complain about the warmth and would like to make the climate cooler if they could"

I didn't even read the article. Someone else linked to the image on another blog.