[luke warm]

billw55, on 2012-September-27, 07:57, said:

Missing premise. We must also know that a carbon tax will affect climate change. That is in doubt.

missing premise.. we must also assume those who favor it really care

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2012-September-27, 12:48, said:

There are various ways, but basically by giving incentives for building nuclear.

So, the conservative is now arguing that the proper role of the government is picking winners and losers.

The reason that economists prefer a carbon tax is to avoid precisely this issue.

[dwar0123]

luke warm, on 2012-September-27, 15:21, said:

missing premise.. we must also assume those who favor it really care

Laugh. That is so idiotic that if I didn't know better I would think you were doing it intentionally.

The rock is unaffected by my caring about it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

billw55 France is the model. They generate a majority of electricity from nuclear, have had no major accidents, and (as I understand) have a generally positive public attitude toward nuclear.

So, the French model for government intervention into energy production is a good thing but the French model of government intervention into health delivery is evil?

[billw55]

Winstonm, on 2012-September-27, 17:24, said:

So, the French model for government intervention into energy production is a good thing but the French model of government intervention into health delivery is evil?

Why do you think so?

[Daniel1960]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-27, 11:43, said:

This applies to any glacier fed river system, once they melt the water will run when the water comes down rather then when the glaciers melt.

For China's rivers, the three gorges dam may be able to take the place of the glaciers, delaying the water until the growing season. In theory India should be able to do the same.

In theory, more precipitation will fall in a warming world. Therefore, lack of water should not be a problem.

Of course, there is no indications that the Himalayan glaciers will melt anytime this millenium, so it is really a non-issue.

[Zelandakh]

Daniel1960, on 2012-September-28, 07:03, said:

Of course, there is no indications that the Himalayan glaciers will melt anytime this millenium, so it is really a non-issue.

But the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 - it must be true, I read it on the internet!

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-28, 07:21, said:

But the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 - it must be true, I read it on the internet!

Classic case of Chinese whipsers - the original text said 2350 but everyone refers to the 2035 quote.

[Zelandakh]

The "original text" is a 1996 paper by VM Kotlyakov, not the IPCC report. The 10 authors of the report all failed to notice the discrepancy!

[Daniel1960]

Zelandakh, on 2012-September-28, 07:51, said:

The "original text" is a 1996 paper by VM Kotlyakov, not the IPCC report. The 10 authors of the report all failed to notice the discrepancy!

The 1996 Kotlyakov paper states, "by the year 2350, glaciers will survive only in the mountains of Alaska, ... , the Himalayas, Tibet, ..." So, not only is the year incorrect, but the claim of Himalayan glacier melting is also wrong. Recent papers support this claim that the Himialayan glaciers will survive well into the future. You cannot believe everything you read on the internet (or the IPCC either).

[Al_U_Card]

Here’s the IPCC Quote from Chapter 10 of the Fourth Assessment Report:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

Bolding of the "source" is mine. So much for peer-reviewed, in the sense of WWF being an advocacy group, much like all of the CAGW crowd.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on 2012-September-29, 06:44, said:

Here’s the IPCC Quote from Chapter 10 of the Fourth Assessment Report:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).

Bolding of the "source" is mine. So much for peer-reviewed, in the sense of WWF being an advocacy group, much like all of the CAGW crowd.

Given how often you provide completely erroneous information, it seems strange to be kvetching about a typo...

[Cascade]

hrothgar, on 2012-September-27, 15:33, said:

So, the conservative is now arguing that the proper role of the government is picking winners and losers.

The reason that economists prefer a carbon tax is to avoid precisely this issue.

Don't artificial taxes simply pick winners and losers.

[hrothgar]

Cascade, on 2012-September-29, 14:44, said:

Don't artificial taxes simply pick winners and losers.

I'd argue that there is a distinction between the two cases.

The expression "picking winner's and losers" normally is applied at the micro level, where the government is making a conscious decision to invest in specific project.

Carbon taxes are designed to accomplish two specific ends:

First, to align the private cost of emitting C02 with the societal cost of emitting C02
Second, to allow the market to optimize around the new prices

Its worth noting that carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes were originally proposed by conservative economists to deal with externalities. (Admitted, this was an earlier, saner version of conservatism than what prevails these days)

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2012-September-29, 07:25, said:

Given how often you provide completely erroneous information, it seems strange to be kvetching about a typo...

To what typo are you referring? You may want to read the previous posts about this.

[dwar0123]

Daniel1960, on 2012-September-28, 07:03, said:

In theory, more precipitation will fall in a warming world. Therefore, lack of water should not be a problem.

Of course, there is no indications that the Himalayan glaciers will melt anytime this millenium, so it is really a non-issue.

Just having enough water isn't enough, you need to have the water at the right time. Societies have developed with the expectation of the water coming at a certain time of the year. Having it come 5 months earlier, all at once, is not a good thing. Glaciers function as natural dams, they hold the water until the warm season when it is needed.

You don't need all of them to melt, just the ones that feed the river systems, the ones that partially melt each year(else there would be no rivers) to melt out completely. One thousand years is an awful long time and I do think there are indications that some of those glaciers will disappear.

I never said when I think they will melt and no matter when it is, there will still be humans depending on them, be it 300 years or 1000 years. Given how long it takes the Earth to cycle carbon out of the ecosystem these are issues that will come up and the only ones who may have ever had a hand in making the decisions that impact the climate in the year 3000 are the generations that exist now.

[Daniel1960]

If all the water fell at once, that would be worse than spread out over the growing season. So far, there is no indication that the rains will deviate from their present pattern. Of course, if the patterns changed, we would need to adapt to their changes.

To update my previous post, there is no indication that the glaciers are disappearing, either today, in 300 years, or 1000 years. There will always be fluctuations. Most glaciers receded during the past 150 years, expanded for several centuries prior, and receded before that. The glaciers were present at every thousand year interval in the past. What reason do you give to say that they would disappear in the next thousand years? The disappearance would require a great change in either solar ouput or land changes.

Do you have any reason to believe that we are influencing the climate of the year 3000?

[mike777]

"Do you have any reason to believe that we are influencing the climate of the year 3000?"



Good points but I hope the debate starts here:


"There is no resource-management strategy that can prevent disasters just as there is no scientific method that provides only true theories.

But there are ideas that reliably cause disasters and one of them is, notoriously, the idea that the future can be scientifically planned.

Trying to predict what our net effect on the environment will be for the next century and then subordinating all policy decisions to optimizing that prediction cannot work."

[luke warm]

Daniel1960, on 2012-October-01, 18:48, said:

Do you have any reason to believe that we are influencing the climate of the year 3000?

mike777, on 2012-October-02, 00:06, said:

Good points but I hope the debate starts here:

"There is no resource-management strategy that can prevent disasters just as there is no scientific method that provides only true theories.

But there are ideas that reliably cause disasters and one of them is, notoriously, the idea that the future can be scientifically planned.

Trying to predict what our net effect on the environment will be for the next century and then subordinating all policy decisions to optimizing that prediction cannot work."

you're both missing the point... those who favor actions such as cap & trade don't really care whether or not AGW is "real"... they want to influence behavior they dislike

[Zelandakh]

luke warm, on 2012-October-02, 06:33, said:

you're both missing the point... some of those who favor actions such as cap & trade don't really care whether or not AGW is "real"... they want to influence behavior they dislike

FYP.