Climate Scientists Are Not Experts in Economics

[Phys251]

1) My OP is not questionable. It's actually quite obvious, and even climate scientists will tell you that they aren't experts in how best to solve these problems economically.

Protip: Never, ever make a claim like that. I speak from experience, BTW.

2) I've said many times already that I believe in global warming caused by humans, but that really has nothing to do with my OP.

Good! So you accept the scientific opinion. Now do you accept the likely possibility of massive costs associated with both climate change itself and climate change mitigation?

 

[atheist4thecaus]

Protip: Never, ever make a claim like that. I speak from experience, BTW.



Good! So you accept the scientific opinion. Now do you accept the likely possibility of massive costs associated with both climate change itself and climate change mitigation?

How about you screw off with your patronizing attitude. I'm not interested in your pro tips.

And yes, climate change has costs. It also has some benefits. Policy to fix it also has costs, and there isn't just one policy option, there are many. Some policies will help the rich more, some will help the poor, some will help some rich and hurt other rich people, etc. Some will be more efficient, some will be less efficient, etc., etc., etc. But for me to say that climate scientists aren't economists and climate scientists aren't experts in determining what policies we should implement economically, I mean, that really isn't questionable, it's common sense.

 

[longview]

:lamo

Nice dodge. Now can you please answer the question? Do you or do you not accept the scientific opinion on climate change?

Let me point out the fallacy of the consensus using your own link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming,
and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.

This sounds like an ominous statement, but it really only says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and adding CO2 can cause some warming.
The currently accepted level of forcing for 2XCO2 is 1.2 C, so
the forcing warming expected from the change in CO2 level from 280 ppm to 406 ppm,
would be 1.73 X ln(406/280)= .642 C, this means that the above statement can be satisfied
without the additional amplified feedbacks required for the IPCC's mid to high end predictions.
The consensus is not that the full suite of IPCC catastrophic predictions are correct, but rather simply
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

Erm.... Why didn't you spend 5 minutes looking on Google? You would have seen that economists have, in fact, directly researched, examined and discussed a variety of issues related to climate change.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-31/a-climate-change-economist-sounds-the-alarm

https://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/the-new-economics-of-climate-change

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...an-previously-thought/?utm_term=.d1fb9611d45c

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/...ts-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

Amazon has numerous books on the subject. They even sell a textbook -- which is in its 2nd edition:
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction...=8-4&keywords=the+economics+of+climate+change



I'm sorry, but that's an absurd argument.

There are tons of consumer products that drop in price over time. In many cases, they fall in price specifically because people are buying them. You have economies of scale, which reduces costs; you have competition, which drives prices down and efficiency up; the companies making the panels have more resources for R&D, to make more efficient and cheaper panels.



Fusion is a long, long way off. Decades. We've been working on it for decades already, too. We cannot wait for fusion to work itself out, and become economically viable.



Climatologists have in fact considered that possibility. Unsurprisingly, in a way that any student of behavioral economics would immediately grasp, they are worried that people will use that option as an excuse to dump more CO2 in the atmosphere. Perhaps more important is that screwing around with the environment in that way could have unknown environmental impacts. Not to mention that lots of the damage cannot be undone -- e.g. if there is significant loss of land ice, removing CO2 from the atmosphere will not restore it.

Dealing with an impacted climate is not like putting a car in reverse. It's more like trying to put an egg back together.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ick-fix-for-climate-change-experts-warn-trump



Yeah, thing is? People have been engaged in those discussions, for a long time. I'm not sure how you missed it.

Well, things are missed when you just go to the propaganda news network for your information and are just fed a bunch of ignorant talking points. It's not wonder these people constantly make fools of themselves on these forums and prove they are so uninformed

 

[longview]

Whatever that is might have a point in there somewhere, but the scientists are pretty convinced about the global temperature trends.

And I am not contesting the global temperature trends, (not now anyway).
but the cause of that trend is brought into question, when the basis of the warming attribution
is not manifest in the data.
Here is what the IPCC's more comprehensive reference says about what will cause the warming.

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes. In reality, due to feedbacks, the response of the
climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the
overall effect of the feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C.
A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge
of clouds and their interactions with radiation.

The data shows the outgoing radiation was not reduced much, only about 1/3 of the prediction.

 

[atheist4thecaus]

Well, things are missed when you just go to the propaganda news network for your information and are just fed a bunch of ignorant talking points. It's not wonder these people constantly make fools of themselves on these forums and prove they are so uninformed

Nobody here has cited CNN.

 

[Phys251]

How about you screw off with your patronizing attitude. I'm not interested in your pro tips.

:lamo

If you're trying to change people's minds, that's not the way to do it.

And yes, climate change has costs. It also has some benefits. Policy to fix it also has costs, and there isn't just one policy option, there are many. Some policies will help the rich more, some will help the poor, some will help some rich and hurt other rich people, etc. Some will be more efficient, some will be less efficient, etc., etc., etc. But for me to say that climate scientists aren't economists and climate scientists aren't experts in determining what policies we should implement economically, I mean, that really isn't questionable, it's common sense.

^ That's what matters. All else is secondary.

 

[Phys251]

Let me point out the fallacy of the consensus using your own link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

This sounds like an ominous statement, but it really only says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas,
and adding CO2 can cause some warming.
The currently accepted level of forcing for 2XCO2 is 1.2 C, so
the forcing warming expected from the change in CO2 level from 280 ppm to 406 ppm,
would be 1.73 X ln(406/280)= .642 C, this means that the above statement can be satisfied
without the additional amplified feedbacks required for the IPCC's mid to high end predictions.
The consensus is not that the full suite of IPCC catastrophic predictions are correct, but rather simply
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So you're unwilling to accept a 95%+ probability? Why are you giving so much weight to the other 5%?

 

[ataraxia]

There are also a lot of scientists that opt-out of conversations. There is a lot of labeling and attacking that goes on by the Left, including by scientists, when a Republican politician wants to take a more economic approach to the issue.

No. The name calling and attacking happens when the politicians call global warming a "Chinese hoax", and conservatives scream themselves hoarse with enthusiasm for such woeful and overt ignorance, and then elect them president.

Look at how Democrats recently argued against Red Team/Blue Team discussions on Climate Change. People on the Left keep saying things like "the debate is over". Well, no, the debate is not over. .

The debate in question which is over is whether global warming is real or just a Chinese hoax.

However, if you just want to debate what to do about it now, we are all ears and willing to debate, discuss, negotiate, compromise, and anything else you would like. But that's a different debate. That IS an issue worth talking about. Just tell the conservative president you just elected though, and your Fox News and other News media outlets that it's not a Chinese hoax. Their loyal public does not believe us when we tell them. It's really up to them to get these people to actually listen up. Just ask the poster "longview" here. He claims to have a background in physics, and is still thinking climate change is not real. He doesn't trust the scientists who are experts in the field on this. So maybe if Fox News said it though, he might believe it.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

1) I know that oil gets subsidies. The reason for that is because oil is one of the most cost-effective forms of energy, and because transportation plays such a huge part of the cost on every product in the entire economy, it makes sense to subsidize the cheapest form of energy for transportation. And I think the importance of diversity often gets lost. Different energy forms have different strengths, weaknesses, and best uses. Nuclear energy is the cheapest, but we don't use it on vehicles, and for good reason. If completely ended fossil fuels and switched entirely over to renewables, we would lose a lot, not just in cost benefits, but also in being able to power different types of things effectively. Here's a small 1-page statement about the value of diversity in energy: https://www.nei.org/Master-Document-Folder/Backgrounders/Fact-Sheets/The-Value-of-Energy-Diversity And btw, energy diversity is the Republican stance. They don't just push fossil fuels. If you look at what President Trump's policy was, all forms of energy, including renewables, are promoted/allowed. This is a market-based approach.

Oil is not the cheapest - not anymore. From Forbes', concerning electric cars:

The true cost of electricity is dependent on where one lives. Last year, electricity ranged from about 24 cents per kilowatt hour in Hawaii to about seven cents per kilowatt hour in Louisiana. The average cost of electricity in the U.S. is about 12 cents per kilowatt hour.

According to the Department of Energy, charging an electric car costs about half as much as fueling a gasoline-powered car. The U.S. average per gallon of gasoline is $2.50 while it would cost $1.10 per eGallon to charge an electric car, according to a tool developed by the Department of Energy which compares the cost of driving with electricity by state.

An average person would spend about $540 driving an electric vehicle for the typical 15,000 miles per year. In some states, electric vehicle owners can fuel their vehicles to capacity for less than dollar. Oregon is an example of a state where most drivers spend about $30 per month to charge their electric cars.

Of course, since Forbes' is known to be SUCH a liberal site (I'm being sarcastic), I'm sure you can find a Big-Oil-approved site that will say something you personally want to hear. But let's continue - according to you, nuclear is the cheapest...but according to the hard numbers, nuclear is now the MOST expensive when it comes to cost per kilowatt/hr, and wind is the cheapest. And don't get me wrong - I'm not afraid at all of nuclear power. I've qualified in the engine room of a nuclear-powered carrier, and I distinctly remember looking at the design of the plant, at all the safeguards and redundancies, and realizing that even if the entire watch team got together and tried to cause a meltdown, they probably wouldn't succeed. That, and we got more radiation from the fluorescent lights than from the reactor. Nuclear power is great for Navy ships - the military logistics advantage of not having to worry about fuel is hard to overstate - but for regular electric power generation on land...no. Not anymore.

If you are indeed "slightly liberal" as you claim, then you are probably not afraid of how technological progress can make obsolete those industries you've known all your life, and both of these references will be welcome and readily-accepted news to you, since both articles are properly sourced with good references. We'll see.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

3) Metaphors are not meant for proving things, they are simply meant for explaining. I understand what you are saying so there is no reason to use a metaphor. The fact that you call my dismissal of your analogy a "dismissal of evinces" shows that you are guilty of the Fallacy of Analogy.

And the metaphor I used was an attempt to explain to you in terms you would readily understand. But it appears that you are determined to not understand, for you (again) built a strawman by accusing me of trying to "prove" using a metaphor. You strongly appear to be determined to not understand any explanations (whether using historical examples, metaphors, or real-world science) that disagree with what you currently believe.

 

[longview]

So you're unwilling to accept a 95%+ probability? Why are you giving so much weight to the other 5%?

Again look at the 95% you are speaking of,

and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans.

That simply says that it is extremely likely that most of the warming is caused by Human activity.
Which I demonstrated with only the forcing warming, no amplified feedbacks necessary.
Why are you giving so much weight to statements that are not mine?

 

[Phys251]

Again look at the 95% you are speaking of,

That simply says that it is extremely likely that most of the warming is caused by Human activity.
Which I demonstrated with only the forcing warming, no amplified feedbacks necessary.
Why are you giving so much weight to statements that are not mine?

Careful with that question--it sounds suspiciously like "When will you stop beating your wife?"

Are you suggesting that that 95+% probability is to be ignored?

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, dude. it's settled.

There is really no doubt that, at this time, CO2 is the largest human influence on the atmosphere. Not only is it one of the largest emissions, it also stays in the atmosphere for decades or centuries, depending on how it is sequestered.

There are other factors, like methane or deforestation, which play a part. But CO2 is the big one. This is not about "faith," it's not about politics, it's not about partisanship, it is simply the overwhelming conclusion of the science.

It is faith, and yours is very strong.

CO2 is not the major cause of warming.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You mean facts like that while CO2 levels have been increasing steadily,
the energy imbalance has been fairly stable for 16 years.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpr...-all-sky_march-2000toseptember-2016.png?w=640

The Science of AGW requires that there be an upward .5 Wm-2 change over that period.
I guess it is a little difficult to spot.

Well, if you perceive those as triangles above and below the zero live, the base of the triangles are wider for the positive side than negative side. Using the volume of the near triangle shapes makes an obvious net positive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

An average person would spend about $540 driving an electric vehicle for the typical 15,000 miles per year. In some states, electric vehicle owners can fuel their vehicles to capacity for less than dollar. Oregon is an example of a state where most drivers spend about $30 per month to charge their electric cars.[/I]

Blink, in Oregon, charges $0.39 to $0.49 per kWh to charge a car.

Blink - Membership FAQs

Now maybe there are cheaper places on a rare occasion, but $0.39 doesn't seem cheap to me.

 

[longview]

Careful with that question--it sounds suspiciously like "When will you stop beating your wife?"

Are you suggesting that that 95+% probability is to be ignored?

Not at all, please define what you think the 95% probability is of?
This is really a rhetorical question, since it says it right in the text,
"that this warming is predominantly caused by humans."
I have long said that AGW is a collection of concepts, some based on Science, others on belief.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas..Science,
That Doubling the level of CO2 will force the surface troposphere system
to warm roughly 1.2 C.. also science but a bit more subjective.
That the warming from the CO2 forcing will be amplified to produce the mid to high end of the IPCC prediction...belief.
Once again the only thing necessary to satisfy the 95% statement, is that more than half of the observed warming is from Human activity.
The simple CO2 forcing meets the criteria, for this warming is predominantly caused by humans.

 

[longview]

Well, if you perceive those as triangles above and below the zero live, the base of the triangles are wider for the positive side than negative side. Using the volume of the near triangle shapes makes an obvious net positive.

Good point! I ran the numbers through a spread sheet averaging 12 months, 36 months and 60 months,
12 month average 2001 to 2016 (-.187 Wm-2)
36 month average 2001 to 2016 (+.169 Wm-2)
60 month average 2001 to 2016 (+.170 Wm-2)
All are considerable less than the amount of forcing required if the 2XCO2 number were 3.71 Wm-2.
Since the 2XCO2 Forcing energy imbalance of between 3 and 4 Wm-2 seems to be well established,
the low actual readings means that there are atmospheric feedbacks, but they are negative.

 

[Phys251]

Not at all, please define what you think the 95% probability is of?
This is really a rhetorical question, since it says it right in the text,
"that this warming is predominantly caused by humans."

Literally answered right there in the text: "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans."

I have long said that AGW is a collection of concepts, some based on Science, others on belief.
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas..Science,
That Doubling the level of CO2 will force the surface troposphere system
to warm roughly 1.2 C.. also science but a bit more subjective.
That the warming from the CO2 forcing will be amplified to produce the mid to high end of the IPCC prediction...belief.
Once again the only thing necessary to satisfy the 95% statement, is that more than half of the observed warming is from Human activity.
The simple CO2 forcing meets the criteria, for this warming is predominantly caused by humans.

Okay. Have you done your own research into this matter, or are you simply supplying a personal interpretation into articles/news stories you have read?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Literally answered right there in the text: "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans."



Okay. Have you done your own research into this matter, or are you simply supplying a personal interpretation into articles/news stories you have read?

You first.

What research have you done?

The 97% line you tow is total nonsense.

 

[longview]

Literally answered right there in the text: "The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans."



Okay. Have you done your own research into this matter, or are you simply supplying a personal interpretation into articles/news stories you have read?

No interpretation necessary, number do not lie.
If the accepted forcing warming for 2XCO2 is 1.2 C , then the move of CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 406 ppm
would produce, 1.73 X ln(406/280)=.642 C of warming, I.E. More than half!
(FYI, the math is 1.2C/ln(2)=1.73, )

 

[Visbek]

Amazing. You strawman me and then have the gall to call me uninformed. If you think there is consensus on what policies should be implemented to solve climate change, tell me what they are, because your link didn't explain that consensus. It merely explained things like there is a consensus global warming is harming the economy. Well, that's not a policy solution.

Oh, and you are one of those pretentious people that attacks the average American as if you are so much smarter than everybody else. Get out of here with that crap.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth, or deliberately weakening your position. I'm pointing out the flaws in exactly what you are writing.

I realize that's unpleasant, but... Do you really believe you're the first person to think about this? Even though scientists have spent years pushing for public policy changes, new technologies, and impacts? Even though governments have already invested considerable time, effort and resources into building out sustainable/renewable energy generation?

As to the report, did you read it? After all, it indicated that:
• Over 75% of the economists agreed CC will have a negative effect on growth rates long-term
• They supported unilateral US mitigation actions, regardless of the possible impacts on other nations' policies
• 75% supported states going along with the Clean Power Plan
• Almost half disagreed with the current carbon discounting method for analyzing policies
• 69% supported increasing the social cost of carbon
• 93% of the economists surveyed recommended either immediate or near-term action (note, this is a significantly higher rate than the US public)

It wasn't super-specific, but that's pretty damned good for a quick search. I'm sure if I spent more time investigating the issue, I could find more surveys, perhaps ones that target economists who have specifically studied the issue. Or, you could spend a little time looking into it... just a thought

Here's another one. IGM Economics Expert Panel, 90% of respondents supported a carbon tax:
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/carbon-tax

...and it turns out that, sadly, the public doesn't really care very much about the opinions of economists. Thus, it seems a tad unlikely that bringing economists or economics further into the fray may not result in a major change in public opinion:
https://www.economist.com/news/fina...-something-public-will-almost-certainly-think


As to your ad hominem attack: Pretty much everyone and their mother says that "Americans need to get more informed" when it comes to a huge swath of political and economic issues. Most Americans don't understand critical topics varying from climate change, to opiate use, to trade policy, to monetary policy, to how to calculate compound interest, to current events. And for what it's worth, I've been fortunate enough to have the time and financial resources to take classes at some of the best educational institutions in the world, in topics ranging from neuroeconomics to international trade. Most Americans haven't had those opportunities. So it goes.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Blink, in Oregon, charges $0.39 to $0.49 per kWh to charge a car.

Blink - Membership FAQs

Now maybe there are cheaper places on a rare occasion, but $0.39 doesn't seem cheap to me.

Spending $540 to drive 15,000 miles seems quite cheap to me.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Spending $540 to drive 15,000 miles seems quite cheap to me.

I don't think they were relying on that number. If they calculated it on personal chargers, the cost of electricity in Oregon is around $0.11 per kWh. I'll bet they calculated it at the consumer rate, not one of these Blink chargers.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I don't think they were relying on that number. If they calculated it on personal chargers, the cost of electricity in Oregon is around $0.11 per kWh. I'll bet they calculated it at the consumer rate, not one of these Blink chargers.

Sounds reasonable enough...but then, I'd say it's more likely that those who own electric cars do not exclusively use either personal chargers or Blink chargers...but that they are significantly more likely to use personal chargers for that very reason.