Monday
Jun042012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Further thoughts on carbon taxes
Jun 4, 2012 Climate: other Economics Tax After I posted the carbon tax piece last night I was struck by a thought. The argument apparently goes that the uncertainty in climate change means that we should insure against it.
Now, let's suppose that I come up with a theory that our world is in danger of being taken over by a superrace of green lizards from the planet Beetlegeuse. Should we insure against that too?
I guess the question I'm asking is, what are the criteria that determine when a hypothesis of impending danger is sufficiently well-supported that insurance is required.
If a bunch of scientists say their models predict that there's a problem but their models seem unable to forecast anything very much, is that sufficient?
Reader Comments (129)
Ben Pile is giving the subject of the Precautionary Principle the old philosophical one-two at http://www.climate-resistance.org/2012/06/reinventing-precaution.html
Richard Tol
If we spend a lot of money on emission reduction and it turns out to be a hoax, we've lost a lot money. This is the reality we face.
You ask: “I guess the question …. is what are the criteria that determine when a hypothesis of impending danger is sufficiently well-supported that insurance is required.”
What “insurance” exactly? Classical insurance involves (a) well-conditioned risks that are unlikely to occur to any specific individual within a population (or unlikely to occur within a given period) but the occurrence of which involves disproportionate cost; (b) that a significant part of the population sees the benefit of mutualising the risk by paying premiums (for which the majority will never see any return) against the risk occurring; (c) underwriters (in the private sector) seeing that they can profit by offering to insure the risk at premiums which a significant part of the population are willing to pay, and (d) regulators on behalf of the population’s government being satisfied that the insurance is not fraudulent – that the underwriters will actually pay the insured sums even if the risk occurs more widely than expected, or long after the premium is paid.
I mention private sector underwriters above because if the risk is just assumed by the population as a whole without any premiums being paid, this is just “socialising” the risk at taxpayer cost (or however the US Supreme Court otherwise characterises the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act case) – and there is no process that rigorously tests the level of risk, on normal commercial principles.
I don’t believe that any underwriters offer “climate change” insurance at present (even, say, against the fairly well-conditioned risk of sea levels rising by more than a specified amount within perhaps the next 50 years), nor that any insurer (regulated, as in the UK, by the Financial Services Authority) is authorised to underwrite such risks. I think the situation is that the risks (if they occur) are to be just socialised – borne by the population at large and paid for essentially by taxation. As before, this does not involve any rigorous test or assessment of the true level of risk.
I notice there is still discussion about MDGNN's contributions to Tallbloke. Comment 28 is interesting: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/lucy-skywalker-graeffs-second-law-seminar/#more-6549
It’s kinetically preferred for an already excited GHG molecule to eject the same energy photon as one just absorbed, restoring Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium. This replicates through the whole atmosphere so GHGs are an energy transfer medium, thermalisation is at clouds, explaining Miskolczi.
It’s proved by Nahle’s recent Mylar balloon experiment. DOWN emissivity tends to zero with height because UP photons preferentially leave the system. This means you don’t need 'back radiation’ to offset the 240 W/m^2 energy to space incorrectly assuming DOWN emissivity is black body. Real clear sky 1 atm. emissivity is 0.1 - 0.2. Pyrgeometers do not measure real energy, just temperature convolved with emissivity which for clouds can reach 0.9. Because IR from them is pseudo-scattered, their influence is over the horizon.
Claes Johnson has picked up the same and is reformulating radiation to eliminate the incorrect two-stream idea. He also shows why pyrgeometers can't measure energy flow.
Just a further observation on Tim Worstall's comment earlier - if I have understood him correctly, he's saying he doesn't much mind what gets taxed, as long as it brings in the same amount (ie a new carbon tax would replace the current 'ragbag' and be 'revenue neutral').
This could perhaps be summed up as, 'Something must be taxed. This is something, therefore we must tax it.'
Careful, there, Tim. So far, governments have had to provide at least a token attempt to show reasons why particular goods or services should be taxed. You are almost endorsing the idea that governments, along with supra-national organisations, are casting about wildly for some excuse (any excuse?) for a universal tax with which to rob the public at will, regardless of reason.
This would get you called a conspiracy theorist if you were on the other side of the argument.
RKS: So when you wrote on 3rd May "blogs covering in depth scientific discussion ... where mydog gets a respectful hearing from contributors who really do know their science" you were thinking of some threads on Tallbloke? I suggested that you might mean Science of Doom or Climate Etc - in other words until the last two days I didn't have a clue. I also asked who you thought 'really knew their science' and you haven't given any indication - though it was a crucial element in what you were saying. The thread you made this started on was started by Jonathan Jones, specifically to deal with some of mydog's claims. Do you think Jones 'really knows his science' - as much as those to whom you referred on 3rd May? Who exactly were you referring to? Thanks again.
Jun 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM RKS
I'm not sure he was ridiculed at BH. Certainly not because of his industrial experience of pyrometry.
I never really understood what he was on about although I made an effort to do so. However I had the impression, from his discussion with other posters, that he thinks that radiation physics, as normally taught and understood, is in error.
Jun 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM spartacusisfree
Claes Johnson's ideas on radiation are totally at variance with texts such as, for example, The Feynman Lectures on Physics.
To give a sample of his ideas (from Slaying the Sky Dragon, p201 - 203) :
"We have seen that the vibrating string gets heated by incoming frequencies above cut-off through a dissipative mechanism acting in-phase through a forcing without resonance, while frequencies below cut-off trigger a radiative mechanism acting out-of-phase with resonance".
"...We have shown that radiative heating requires that the temperature of the incoming radiation is higher than that of the absorbing body."
Good point Martin A: MDGNN has gone for a very different approach - apparently confirmed experimentally by Nahle - indirect thermalisation. Happer warned of the incorrect ICC IR physics in 1993 when he resigned from his DoE job.
Years back, it came as a bit of a surprise to telecommunications engineers trying to predict network performance via mathematical models to find that not only was network traffic chaotic on short timescales, it remained chaotic and impossible to produce meaningful statistical models even on long timescales, with very large volumes of traffic.
Is there any reason to believe that attempts to model and predict climate change over, say, the next 200 years, should be any more successful than attempts to predict next month's weather?
I know that climate modellers would ridicule such a question - but they would, wouldn't they?
Mydog says that he has a paper awaiting puiblication. Why don't we all cut him some slack until we see what he has to say?
PS to Martin: MDGNN uses statistical thermodynamics, a numbers' game. The physicists wrap it up in fancy equations. For a third approach read Aussie Doug Cotton.
The bottom line is that the two-stream approximation used by Houghton can't work at boundaries and only net radiation does work so a cooler body can't transfer energy uphill.
".....not only was network traffic chaotic on short timescales, it remained chaotic and impossible to produce meaningful statistical models even on long timescales, with very large volumes of traffic."
Martin, a perfect analogy in my opinion,
You and I have been banging on about the virtual impossibility of numerical models predicting long term climate for months, to the point where everybody is getting bored stiff with it. Yet, the point fails to register. Why does nobody else understand this stuff, and what can we do about it?
Martin A: I'm also with you on the network traffic analogy. In fact I don't think you've said anything on BH with which I've disagreed :)
Roger: Just for my education (which was a key motivation for my question to RKS on 3rd May) where has Mydog said that he has a paper awaiting publication and what stage is this process at? As I'm sure you know I've always strongly advocated this step.
Richard,
I am fairly certain that I have seen mydog's pronouncement that he has a paper in peer review several times, either here or at Tallbloke's. Sorry, it could take hours to track down, but I am sure this is correct.
Apparently that work is the aerosol optical physics. It has been confirmed here [page 5]: www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf
Stephens' work has not been published either. Average optical depth of bimodal low level clouds is 25% more than unimodal meaning all data derived from satellite albedos are suspect, net AIE supposed to hide modern warming is much less than believed and could be the real GW mechanism.
Jun 5, 2012 at 6:26 PM Roger Longstaff
Of course, it could be that the point is so obvious that no-one thinks it's worth wasting typing-finger-seconds agreeing.
I think there is an emperor's clothes effect in operation:
- The models have getting on for a million lines of code*
(not just any old code - FORTRAN code).
- They run on ludicrously powerful computers.
- They use the same models (and code, I think) that is used for predicting the weather.
- There is a sizable team developing the models: "About 100 Met Office scientists contribute the bulk of the code changes for any given release*".
- The models are shown to be capable of reproducing the climate to date ("Which gives scientists confidence they can also predict the future")**
Who could fail to be impressed?
As I have said before, my own view is that the current models get as near to modelling long term climate as the man who climbed a ladder and announced that he had made good progress in his goal of getting to the moon.
The whole AGW edifice will eventually fall apart - more likely from having been overtaken by real and serious problems or simply having been laughed off the stage. Worthwhile as it is to point out the circular reasoning and untested hypotheses presented as established fact, I don't think these efforts will have played a major role in its demise.
* http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~sme/papers/2008/Easterbrook-Johns-2008.pdf
**Warming A guide to climate change (Met Office)
Martin:
I think the derision factor (laughed off the stage) is going to be big and it's a very necessary step - hence my being an outlier in supporting of the Heartland ad the evening that all kicked off. That's prompted lots of unpolitically incorrect thoughts since. But even though it has its uses derision is certainly not a sufficient condition. I think that policy makers (and the whole think-tank, bureaucratic classes around them) have to understand the problem with the argument from software models. Richard Lindzen is available to help - and remember he met one fairly senior member of the current administration after his talk at the House of Commons in February. Lindzen's always advocated policy makers needing to read the science and ask the scientists first hand and I think he's absolutely right. It's very important that this fallacy in the argument is understood. Roger's right to be concerned about people not getting it, in other words - but like all of us, he may be inclined to think his (this) small corner is the only place to consider. Lindzen's last visit was more important than obscure threads here. But because I too like to think this small corner is important I'd prefer speculations from critics of Lindzen (and Curry, and the rest) on greenhouse theory at least to be in published paper form before they take up much of our time here. It's all a judgment thing, as Freeman Dyson once said when challenged whether he had sufficient detailed knowledge of the GCMs to find them wanting. My judgment is that he has enough to know. In fact we all do.
Martin, Richard, thanks for your thoughts.
My problem is that, when pressed, the "warmists" admit that there is no evidence for CAGW (or even AGW), however the "models" predict themageddon, therefore we should all....pay more taxes, stop using petrol, export our industries to Asia, etc, etc, etc..........
It is all absolute nonsense! The models have proved themselves to be unfit for puropse, and anybody with a reasonable knowledge of numerical modelling understands that what they are trying to do, with the available information and tools, is mathematically impossible.
Although a few here understand the mathematics and physics well enough to know, beyond reasonable doubt, that the whole CAGW hypothesis is built upon sand, I ask the question again - how can this message be conveyed, and by whom?
Roger: I know it will sound twee - it's probably having heard Sir Cliff at the Jubilee concert yesterday, just to make the build-up sound as bad as possible - but the answer has to be
The very small overcoming the very big is a story line that grips human beings whenever it's told right. I believe it really happens. In fact in the most important sense it already has. But you don't have to follow any of that except to shine in your small corner. And I need help with mine :)
Roger Longstaff
You might be interested in the comments of John Eggert on effective CO2 path lengths in the atmosphere:
http://johneggert.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/traffic/
His comments make sense to me and I await his revisions with interest.
Thanks nby, I will look at it after I have put some time into the day job for the rest of the week.
Roger: 8.37 pm.It was only recently that I saw where the key error lies. The modelling breaks every conventional heat transfer rule, including creating a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd kind, but it all hangs together if you believe Houghton's physics.and that single pyrgeometers measure a real IR flux.
But they don't. All pyrometers block out radiation from all areas but the one you want to measure. It's OK for visible light because the Earth isn't emitting at those frequencies, but with IR the real energy flow is much lower, zero in the case of the colder body in view, as it is offset by the energy flow blocked from reaching the detector, This is elementary experimental stupidity.
The insurance industry has unequivocally accepted the catastrophic scenario of anthropogenic climate change. Whether it is genuine or an opportunity to make ever larger profits is debatable. The actuarial profession which, of course, calculates risk enabling insurers to assess premium rates appears to be convinced that anthropogenic climate change poses a high financial risk to insurers:
http://www.theactuary.com/features/2011/11/gi-climate-change-braving-the-elements/
Their magazine, The Actuary, recently contained an article posing the question: "Is the insurance industry ready for the challenges and opportunities presented by climate change?" It contained the following remarks about anthropogenic effects on the climate and insurance:
"Likewise, natural catastrophes such as windstorms, droughts and floods are expected to increase due to global warming, brought about by increasing levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere."
"Catastrophe models have now been part of the insurance industry for more than a decade, integrated in both the capital and underwriting functions. Companies rely on the science and consistency that these models can bring to the table. Therefore, the latest update to the RMS US windstorm model came as quite a shock to the market, where modelled expected losses increased significantly across the market with some accounts seeing modelled expected losses increasing by more than 200%."
"Whether market players believe the modelled results or not, reinsurance rates across the market are expected to increase on the back of this model change. Direct insurers will have used the increase in modelled cost in their negotiations pushing for higher premiums."
"With global warming on people’s minds, it does not matter if this is a true or perceived increase in risk."
"Climate change is expected to bring severe weather conditions and more frequent droughts causing crop failure and loss of livestock."
"New products can offer stability to society while increasing insurance penetration throughout the developing world..........Many other products have also come to market in the areas of renewable energy, weather derivatives and new political risk products, such as carbon credit eligibility (to trade), to name but a few."
"The insurance industry will have an important part to play given the uncertainty surrounding the impacts of climate change and global demand on the environment. With larger populations and larger cities in catastrophe-prone areas, insurance will become even more crucial to companies and governments in managing the economic impact of such events."
It is a big opportunity to make a lot of money with limited forseeable risk. Therefore the sceptical view of the so-called consensus of anthropogenic climate science is completely discounted:
"GIRO 2007 - Refuting the skeptics
"If you come across other useful skeptic refutations; put them below. They will become a growing resource for actuaries (and others)."
http://climatechange.pbworks.com/w/page/11143595/GiRo07RefuteSkeptics
http://climatechange.pbworks.com/w/search?q=]%20%20CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20WORKING%20PARTY%20%E2%80%93%20GIRO%202007
I notice there is still discussion about MDGNN's contributions to Tallbloke. Comment 28 is interesting: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/lucy-skywalker-graeffs-second-law-seminar/#more-6549
It’s kinetically preferred for an already excited GHG molecule to eject the same energy photon as one just absorbed, restoring Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium. This replicates through the whole atmosphere so GHGs are an energy transfer medium, thermalisation is at clouds, explaining Miskolczi.
It’s proved by Nahle’s recent Mylar balloon experiment. DOWN emissivity tends to zero with height because UP photons preferentially leave the system. This means you don’t need 'back radiation’ to offset the 240 W/m^2 energy to space incorrectly assuming DOWN emissivity is black body. Real clear sky 1 atm. emissivity is 0.1 - 0.2. Pyrgeometers do not measure real energy, just temperature convolved with emissivity which for clouds can reach 0.9. Because IR from them is pseudo-scattered, their influence is over the horizon.
Claes Johnson has picked up the same and is reformulating radiation to eliminate the incorrect two-stream idea. He also shows why pyrgeometers can't measure energy flow.
Jun 5, 2012 at 2:27 PM | spartacusisfree>>>>>
Just two posts after this one of your, Richard Drake was asking for references to MDGNN's posts at Tallbloke - he obviously didn't read your, but went onwith the the usual old tired propaganda about 'Dragon Slayers' whenever climate science unrelated to CO2 is mentioned. BORING and PETTY.
This, of course, shows him to be just a mere advocate of his own viewpoint alone, with no respect for qualified physicists working hard to get to the truth.
Perhaps he'll take the trouble to look at the link you've provided above just for starters.
RKS: you brought up Tallbloke in one of your intemperate complaints about Bishop Hill. I didn't mention the Dragon Slayers. You misrepresent, you fail to answer and your bluster wears thin.
RKS: it is normal for people to have strong views in science. Cool heads arbitrate to establish the truth.
The problem is, the bedrock of modern atmospheric science, the IR pyrometers called pyrgeometers, cannot measure as claimed 'Downwelling IR'. This mistake has persisted for 50 years.
Without it, the models lose ~40% gain in input energy mainly in the IR. It's this which creates positive feedback. Also, the two-stream approximation fails. 'Downwelling LW' is our version of Phlogiston.
RKS: you brought up Tallbloke in one of your intemperate complaints about Bishop Hill. I didn't mention the Dragon Slayers. You misrepresent, you fail to answer and your bluster wears thin.
Jun 6, 2012 at 7:55 AM | Richard Drake>>>>>
I love the rough and tumble at BH along with the exposure of some of the dirty tricks brigade. Highbrow it ain't, with or without your selection of 'elite' media hacks.
It gives a chance to keep up to date, prick a few overblown egos and entertain oneself watching the ensuing tantrums.
You're right, it was Martin A mentioned Dragon Slayers - you referred to the AGW advocacy called Science Of Doom [an odd choice for any sceptic to visit].
Anyway, grow up and give it a rest for a while, you're beginning to seem a little shrill.
"I guess the question I'm asking is, what are the criteria that determine when a hypothesis of impending danger is sufficiently well-supported that insurance is required."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you've raised a very interesting aspect of the catastrophic anthropogenic climate scenario. For if insurers genuinely believe that carbon dioxide from human activity will cause catastrophic loss and damage it would be uninsurable. This is because the extent and magnitude of claims would be so large that premiums would not cover losses.
For this reason underwriters would have to exclude loss or damage due to climate change from their policies. Though they may already consider it excluded by virtue of its not being included in the cover provided by the terms of their policies.This they do already, as where a property is in a high risk flood area, damage due to a flood is excluded.
Taking it to its logical conclusion, if there was a hurricane or flood from the sea, resulting in huge financial claims on insurance companies the claim could be repudiated on the basis that the proximate cause of the loss and damage was climate change. They would be able to cite numerous scientific papers as evidence that climate change was the cause and the claim was therefore not covered by insurance policies.
So if Myles Allen's roof blows off in a storm and he has stated that such a storm was most likely to be due to climate change, he could find himself in a dispute with his insurers where they might be able to use his own scientific opinions as evidence that his claim was not valid.
Ironically if a CAGW proponent had a claim refused on the basis of it having been caused by climate change he would have to turn to the sceptical viewpoint to try demonstrate to his insurers that the proximate cause was simply a hurricane due to normal variability in the weather.
california is preaching to all the "non progressives" how to build more windmills , because of their much acclaimed precautionary principle.
However, are they precautionary enough against a turning tide of bond market access?
Are they precautionary enough against an earth quake that would destroy 20% of their infrastructure?
Then we will see lots of professional politicianold women scurry to the USSA's meat pots and cookie jars to quickly fuel up.
"they did not know, it is much much worse as we thought, we need much much more help" they will say, assisted by all the liberal retard news channels.