Wednesday
Aug102011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Timmy on the RCPs
Aug 10, 2011 Climate: Models Tim Worstall has picked up on the IPCC emissions scenarios (RPCs) and has an article up at Forbes.
Aug 10, 2011 Climate: Models 
Reader Comments (35)
If we all get richer, and hence adopt western eating habits, the planet will be saved.
If we all get poorer, and start eating pulses, the planet is doomed.
Meat is no longer murder. All hail the pig.
Is this guy a competent commentator given his claim:
"I have difficulties working out the difference between a kW and a MWh"?
Tim - if you are reading - was this tongue in cheek? If you are a global expert on scandium, presumably you are able to handle the conversion between rate of production and its time integral?
As an economist do you have any comment on the reliablity of models being used to extrapolate to the year 2300? (section 3.6)
"Tim - if you are reading - was this tongue in cheek? If you are a global expert on scandium, presumably you are able to handle the conversion between rate of production and its time integral?"
It's sorta tongue in cheek but then that's my writing style. We all have areas of life where we know Sweet FA. I'm told there's something called West Coast Gangsta Rap and equally I'm told that there's something called a time integral. Excellent, I'll do that division and specialisation of labour thing and let others hurt their brains over them. I'm just not competent to comment upon them.
I do know a little about economics which is why I comment upon the subject: and I know an awful lot about scandium which is how I make my living.
But what I know about scandium is more about Bert produces it and Burt uses it and I know both their phone numbers. Rather than, say, time integrals, whatever they are.
As to the reliability of models out 290 years? Well, I'm not an economist, as I keep telling people. But while they're unlikely to be accurate in each and every detail we can indeed say some useful things about economics over such time scales. Non-market economies will see technological stagnation for example. Globalisation will produce greater wealth for less resource use than not globalisation.
And it's the first of those two statments that they are using in their models. Market economies,will have both high GDP growth and hig technological advance. That's how we can have both high GDP growth and low emissions growth.
Tim, for some reason Tom Nelson decided that your article places you firmly in the 'warmist' camp, and headlined his link to the article accordingly. Given your numerous statements about not being in any particular camp, you may want to correct his misconception?
:)
I did see that. But given that I've no friggin' idea who Tom Nelson is and care even less decided that a correction would be too much effort.
Tim - thanks for replying but I'm shocked and disappointed that a Fellow of the Adam Smith Insitute who claims he is annoyed by
"Innumeracy in journalists. Being an arts graduate who can write does not mean having to give up on numbers and sums."
can't bottom out that if you produce something at rate "x", after "t" time you will have quantity "xt".
http://blogs.forbes.com/people/timworstall/
http://www.adamsmith.org/asi-fellows/
The latest update reckons there'll be 2,740 ppb of methane in the atmosphere by 2050. It's about 1,800 now.
That would require 23 ppb per year extra to be added for the next 40 years.
In the 23 years they've been measuring it in Hawaii it's risen 5 ppb/year. In the second half of that record the rise has slowed to 2.5 ppb/year.
Reminds me of that climatgate email:
"I want to make one thing really clear. We ARE NOT supposed to be working with the assumption that these scenarios are realistic."
Blimey! 30 years at it but Wiki beats an Electrical Eng for the best description! (Dam you Scots with your Red Label in Cyprus!)
"The terms power and energy are frequently confused. Power is the rate at which energy is generated or consumed. Power therefore has the unit watts, which is joules per second. A unit of energy is kilowatt hour.
For example, when a light bulb with a power rating of 100W is turned on for one hour, the energy used is 100 watt hours (W·h), 0.1 kilowatt hour, or 360 kJ. This same amount of energy would light a 40-watt bulb for 2.5 hours, or a 50-watt bulb for 2 hours. A power station would be rated in multiples of watts, but its annual energy sales would be in multiples of watt hours. A kilowatt hour is the amount of energy equivalent to a steady power of 1 kilowatt running for 1 hour, or 3.6 MJ.
Power units measure the rate of energy per unit time. Many compound units for rates explicitly mention units of time, for example, miles per hour, kilometres per hour, dollars per hour. Kilowatt hours are a product of power and time, not a rate of change of power with time. Terms such as watts per hour are often misused.[10] Watts per hour (W/h) is a unit of a change of power per hour. It might be used to characterize the ramp-up behaviour of power plants. For example, a power plant that reaches a power output of 1 MW from 0 MW in 15 minutes has a ramp-up rate of 4 MW/h. Hydroelectric power plants have a very high ramp-up rate, which makes them particularly useful in peak load and emergency situations.
Major energy production or consumption is often expressed as terawatt hours for a given period that is often a calendar year or financial year. One terawatt hour is equal to a sustained power of approximately 114 megawatts for a period of one year.
Going to take my grandson down to the pool now and try to remember the City and Guilds electrical stuff but always remember that "joules per second" bit!
Now how many joules per second does it take to push a broom to clear up the mess in the U.K. that takes our mind of Huhne's "indiscretion?
MPH divided by 45 miles < wife previous appointment / time for police to work out previous speeding crimes for a minister / time for the police to work out same crime for Joe Blog / CPS to work out how much pressure various ministers place on CPS/ who replaces the Minister/ How much the replacement paid his boyfriend in gifts as opposed to "expenses" / the utter stupidity of the U.K. electorate for allowing this all to happen...../RE=.0?
Hmmm! Now where did I learn about RE?!!!!!!!!!!! Bish!!!!!! You bad man!
I can't go with this though:
"Or as I pointed out at book length recently, a globalised market economy with a carbon tax will do just fine."
I thought it was gliding along reasonably until that end. I'm not convinced that the argument that (carbon dioxide) taxation creates economic growth, wealth creation or higher living standards. In fact I would say that it is upside down. I don't even want to ask where the premise of a "global carbon tax" might lead, and what mechanisms it will be enforced and policed. A global government perhaps?
#Tim Worstall
Tom Nelson is a person who has taken it upon themselves to aggregate all the internet postings concerning global warming, it's supposed second order effects and putative solutions. These come from both sides of the aisle. Given that many such postings are of the "it's even worse than we thought two hours ago" variety he plays a useful role in showing what idiots some people think we are.
Perhaps that explains why he assumed your boiling Flipper comment was serious. That said the post concerned has subsequently lost the "warmist" title albeit he still defends his initial characterisation.
Reading along, all making sense until the last thing about global carbon tax and everything being fine... How about - you guys go first....?
If I understand Tim Worstall, he is arguing that a Carbon Tax is better than Cap and Trade rather than arguing in favour of CT in itself. And (Tim correct me if I'm wrong) he argues that a Carbon Tax should be fiscally neutral - that is other taxes should be removed to compensate.
I don't see anything to suggest that Tim would desire a global government to impose a Carbon Tax.
"If I understand Tim Worstall, he is arguing that a Carbon Tax is better than Cap and Trade rather than arguing in favour of CT in itself. And (Tim correct me if I'm wrong) he argues that a Carbon Tax should be fiscally neutral - that is other taxes should be removed to compensate. "
Correct: My arguments about climate change always start with: the IPCC is correct. OK, now, knowing what we do know about economics, what should we be doing?
Emissions are an externality with a cost, we know how to deal with those. Pigou Taxes. So, we'll have a carbon tax please, reduce other taxes so its revenue neutral. We also desire a globalised economy and a market based one (these two can also be derived from the IPCC reports).
That is, even if the IPCC is right, Jonny Porrit, G. Monbiot, nef, Greenpeace, Foe , Chris Huhne and them all: they're wrong.
Which I think is rather interesting, even if I'm not all that good at algebra (numbers I can handle).
This came my way which might be of interest to you:
Dear Colleagues,
You are invited to join the Environmental Pollution and Human Health Working Group (EPHHWG 2011), third annual Environmental Pollution and Human Health Conference focused on the practical applications of social and behavioural research to achieve viable solutions to environmental pollution/human health. It builds on the overwhelming success of previous EPHHWG conferences at which 800 participants from universities, government, corporations and organizations discussed successful policy and program strategies, shared important research findings, and created dynamic new networks and collaborations.
Conveners: Environmental Pollution and Human Health Working Group-James Boswell House 118-122 Great Portland St, London W1W 6PW, United Kingdom. Ph: +44 703 596 6942.
Call for Presentation Abstracts: The EPHHWG 2011 Organizing Committee requests proposals for presentations from policy makers, businesses, social scientists, researchers, media specialists, marketers, energy experts, program designers, implementers, and evaluators. We invite proposals for three types of presentations:
1.Oral Presentations (15-20 minute formal presentations and slides)
2.Lightning Talks (5-7 minute presentations - highlights of results, insights, or novel/transformative ideas)
3.Poster Presentations (informal presentations)
We are seeking well-documented, effective applications of behavioural approaches in environmental pollutions and related health problems.
Topic Areas: Abstracts must be submitted online fewer than one of the following categories; if your topic doesn't fit easily into one of these categories (or if it fits into multiple categories) please choose the closest match.
·Climate Change and the Oceans
·Sustainable Development, Environment, Health and Development
·Remote Sensing and Global Surveillance
·Water Resources Management
·Carbon & GHG Management
·Extreme Events and Impacts Assessment
·Greenhouse Gas & Ecosystems
·Human Health In a Changing Climate
·Agricultural and Forestry Resources Management
·Clean Energy Technology
·Low GHG Transportation
·Education: Global Change & Sustainable Development
·Case studies.
.Water Pollution
Proposal Submission: Interested presenters should submit an abstract of less than 500 words of text summarizing the proposed presentation and a short bio (100 words, email: conference@ephhwg.org or fax on: +44 844 774 8156 by 18th August, 2011. Submissions will be judged on relevance to conference themes, clarity of thought, data/documented results, creativity, fit in conference program and other criteria. Deadline for notification of acceptance is 18th August, 2011.
Conference Registration: All presenters are expected to register online by 31st August, 2011. Registration is free of charge for delegates from developing countries. Also free flight ticket, travel insurance, visa fees and per diem to be provided for all paper presenters and participating delegates.
For more details on online registration, abstract submission, full papers and power point presentation, accommodation, flight, and venue, please email: conference@ephhwg.org or fax on +44 844 774 8156
Important dates:
18 August 2011 Deadline for abstract submission
31 August 2011 Notification of acceptance/Full paper Submissions
26-30 September 2011 Conference Dates
We look forward to seeing you at the conference.
Dr. Kings Lawrence
Organizing Committee
Environmental Pollution and Human Health
Working Group-James Boswell House 118-122
Great Portland St, London W1W 6PW,
United Kingdom.
Ph: +44 703 596 6942
"My arguments about climate change always start with: the IPCC is correct. "
It's ghastlier than I thought.
"So, we'll have a carbon tax please..."
I can't believe I'm hearing this go unchallenged.
I'm opposed to taxing something that we're unsure (by a long way) requires taxation.
Personally, I find the idea of taxing that which we exhale naturally, and a naturally occurring gas to be frankly absurd, but I do accept that if said gas - and our emissions of it - really is a dangerous temperature driver, then I'm prepared to look into it what do about it. I don't believe we're at that point yet to make that call. And I certainly don't accept the IPCC position as my startpoint.
Maybe it's me then. Is there anyone else here who opposes a tax on carbon dioxide?
Justin Ert
I agree with TW:
Accept the science. Pay the Pigouvian tax. Don't let anyone persuade you that we can decarbonise the economy by displacing coal with renewables by 2050.
#Justin
If it helps think of Reductio ad absurdum.
Start with the propositions accepted by your opponent and take them to their logical conclusion.
Taxation is the route to salvation. I've heard this before, and I'm reaching for my wallet and I'm thinking I've been had.
Never.
Justin Ert - I agree entirely. I often read Tim's stuff (I even have his book) and some I agree with, some I don't. With the greatest respect to him, I think his willingness to accept the IPCC is in any sense correct is rather puzzling. The IPCC is not a scientific body but a political one, whose purpose is to misrepresent and cherry pick the results of scientific enquiry into human impacts on the climate in order to further their masters' political agenda (in exactly the same way as the EU, Greens etc. support the alarmists' claims). There is no sense in which they are 'right'.
And neither carbon tax nor C&T are necessary or could be implemented in a fiscally neutral way.
Tim:
Economist Dr. Ross McKitrick of Hockey Stick fame, I believe, had a carbon tax proposal that made great sense to me: you tie the carbon tax rate to the change in global temperature/ocen heat content or some other metric that is a reliable measure of the externalities that may be of concern. The tax rate would start of really low and increase if and only if the actual metric increases.
TDK
Okay then. Reductio ad absurdum:
- The physical properties of CO2 have been misinterpreted by the entire scientific community for 150 years
- RF from a doubling of CO2 either cannot heat the atmosphere, or it is limited to ca +1C and no positive feedbacks within the climate system amplify the initial warming
- There is nothing to worry about and no need to pay a Pigouvian tax to fund research into decarbonising the global economy (energy efficiency, Gen IV nuclear etc)
Girls, girls, girls, what have I told you before? Stop referring to "Carbon", even when quoting warmistas. We know that "carbon" is used as a shorthand for Carbon Dioxide, yet carbon in CO2 only represents 26% by mass, the remainder, 74%, being oxygen. We should therefore more logically use "Oxygen" as the shorthand for CO2. Hence such expressions as "oxygen tax", "oxygen footprint", "low oxygen economy" etc. Please feel free to add your own favourites.
"...carbon in CO2 only represents 26% by mass, the remainder, 74%, being oxygen."
Simon is quite right to propose we mess with the warmistas' heads. Force them to practise greater precision and clear thought.
Justin, don't ask me how I know, but Tim is not a warmista: he simply makes a point of accepting the basic IPCC positions, and the arguments of that fool Stern and, as TDK observes, employs the agreeable technique of reductio ad absurdum. I especially enjoy it when Tim points out that the present (or do I mean previous?) taxes on air travel cover all the alleged damage at the rate Stern demands.
There is more than one way to skin a cat, especially if you enjoy hearing it scream.
worstall in july, praising australia's carbon tax without mentioning it leads to an ETS, which i thought he was against:
11 July: Forbes: Tim Worstall: The Australian Carbon Tax Plan: Pretty Good Actually
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/07/11/the-australian-carbon-tax-plan-pretty-good-actually/
whether govts should be handed more taxes, or whether govts should be required to downsize instead, is a current debate. in Europe, it is Brussels making policy, not the elected so-called representatives voted in, and paid for until death do they depart, by the public in member countries.
in australia, our political parties appear unconcerned that a substantial majority of australian voters do not approve of a carbon "dioxide" tax or an ETS, but rather seem to be following some UN agenda, so why do we bother to vote? yes, our Opposition says it is against the "carbon tax", but they still say they plan to use plenty of taxpayers' money to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
our next federal elections come after the imposition of the "carbon tax"/ETS, which we are told the Opposition, if or when they come to power, will not be able to overturn. therefore, the public expects the Opposition right now to be wholeheartedly embracing CAGW scepticism, and bringing to the attention of the public the almost daily chinks in the IPCC narrative, instead of playing little power games among themselves, all the while insisting they are just as determined to lower CO2 emissions!
The article was going so well until the end where he decides we need a Carbon Tax. How does that spur economic growth??
"There is nothing to worry about and no need to pay a Pigouvian tax to fund research into decarbonising the global economy (energy efficiency, Gen IV nuclear etc)"
Sigh.
Pigou taxes do not pay for anything. We are not trying to raise money for this or that.
We are trying, soleley and exclusively, to correct imperfections in market prices.
Now my apologies, I really did think that people who read B Hill would get this. If you don't , then you're an idiot.
Tim's argument (and you should all read his excellent book) is that even if you accept the IPCC's numbers, then what the Warmist community wants to do to 'solve' the problem is wrong.
You don't even need to tackle the science being wrong. They are wrong even using their own projections and plans.
You need to work hard to achieve that level of incompetence. And is an argument which will have great traction with ordinary MOPs who can't be bothered to listen to squabbling scientists.
Stuck-record
I usually find that if someone's plans don't make logical sense it is because they are not telling you their real intention or are hiding some of the "facts". What are the real intentions of those who are proposing cap and trade?
Ed
Tim Worstall
I misspoke. I should have said 'tax' not 'Pigouvian tax'. Revenue neutral, as you said.
I was thinking of the usual arguments. Careless perhaps. Idiot, no.
Tim, if we have a problem, then a Pigovian tax on CO2 may be the solution, but I don't for one minute believe that you believe we can persuade the governments of the globe to act in unison. So that's not really a solution. The UK represents under 2%, and falling of the world's human emissions of CO2. The reason we, and all the other Western industrial nations, are living in times of unprecedented prosperity is our use of energy from fossil fuels, and there will be no replacement for them other than nuclear for a very long time, if ever. So the logical conclusion from your Pigou tax proposal is that plucky little Blighty will reduce it's use of fossil fuel energy and replace it with what? If you don't have a replacement, and I can't see one, other than nuclear, you will impoverish the UK as businesses move to countries where they don't have artificial costs adding to the burden of doing business in the UK. I may be wrong of course, so can you point me to where a Pigovian tax on a basic commodity has been tried and succeeded?
Tim Worstall
Sir,
I am curious as to what is your real goal. You insult us with calling us idiots because we "do not get this?" The question I must ask is just how naive do you believe us to be?
In specific you are proposing a "tax" which is to "soleley [sic] and exclusively, to correct imperfections in market prices". In my book, those are called tariffs or excise taxes while I am sure that they can be buried under any nomenclature you could chose to use. One of the most infamous in the United States is the "Alternate Tax Method" (ATM) originally proposed and passed to punish some small number of "tax cheats" who used "dubious" but still quite legal tax shelters to reduce their tax liabilities . To date, most tax payers in the US earning more than $100,000 are now force to compute and sometimes pay that ATM tax because the US congress has discovered that the ATM tax is a revenue ATM -- to use the banking use of the term -- even though they are not dealing in any manner with tax loopholes. I am one such individual, so I speak from person experience. I do not and never did own cattle or oil wells, just to name two of the so-called "tax shelters" under attack by the ATM. I own stock as part of my IRA ROTH funds and that is all. Yet, there I am filling out that stupid form along with the 8606 which is in comprehensible when it comes to line 24 an 25.
And then there is a truly massive number of "temporary" taxes need to "see us through a rough period of time" which somehow never go away.
Sir, I believe you are misspelling "Pigouvian tax" -- it should be spelled "Pigout tax" for that is what it will surely end up being.
Eddieo
I don't know what you're referring to. I never mentioned Cap and Trade. Don't support it. Neither does Tim.
Yes I gathered that and neither do I. My point was that the real reason it is being proposed is nothing to do with climate as this simply doesn't make any sense. And when something doesn't make sense it usually means that the full facts are not on the table. There are ulterior motives to do with cash rather than carbon (sic).
Ed
Along similar lines Scott Denning is arguing that free market advocates are AWOL in the policy debate
http://www.viddler.com/explore/heartland/videos/369/
(This was at the recent Heartland conference)