Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

[Myriad]

No quantitative economic models are just as useless [as climate models].

Uh oh, take a look at this one:

The Cost of Climate Regulation for American Households (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)

Here's the gist of the "Executive Summary" page:

In this paper we summarize various estimates of the costs of mitigation of adverse impact of the climate change via cap-and-trade...

However, our main finding is that even for more optimistic estimates, the mitigation costs are likely to amount to as much as 1% drop in consumption starting today and going into the future, which, as we argue, constitutes an enormous impact on social welfare.

And how did they find these findings? Where did these "various estimates" come from? Let's check out "Table 1: Percent Change in GDP from Baseline" on page 4. Sure enough, seven different findings by seven different groups are tabulated. But what's this in Column 2? "Model."

Listed in this column are: EPPA, NEMS, MRN-NEEM, GI, ADAGE, and IGEM. (Some groups used more than one, and some models were used by more than one group).

Perhaps these are the names of fashion models who just happen to have a keen intuition for economic forecasting? Or model railroads that the economists play with as they derive their forecasts through sheer brainpower?

Oops, no such luck. Here's some info on EPPA, from MIT no less. (They don't use computers much there, do they?)

"The model is formulated in two versions with contrasting representations of agent expectations. The recursive-dynamic (myopic) version is the more computationally efficient..."

Maybe they need it to be computationally efficient because they run it on their slide rules. Or maybe... it's just virtual reality!

And here's someone using NEMS. Uh oh:

"We run NEMS on the same computer platform that EIA uses (RS/6000, under AIX)"

More virtual reality!

"MRN is a computable general equilibrium model of the US economy that simulates patterns of investment and consumption behavior... MRN and NEEM are integrated using an iterative solution procedure."

Iterative, I've seen that word before, isn't that how climate models work too? More virtual reality!

Need I go on?

Never mind, I will anyhow.

"ADAGE is a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model capable of investigating economic policies at the international, national, U.S. regional, and U.S. state levels. CGE models such as ADAGE combine economic theory and empirical data to estimate policy effects, while accounting for all interactions among businesses and consumers."

Virtually, of course.

"The Global Insight (GI) long-term U.S. macro economic model is a large-scale 30-year (120-quarter) macroeconometric model of the U.S. economy. It is used primarily for commercial forecasting.

"Over the years, analysts at The Heritage Founda tion's Center for Data Analysis have worked with economists at Global Insight to adapt the GI model to policy analysis. In simulations, CDA analysts use the GI model to evaluate the effects of policy changes..."

Simulations? Not laboratory tests? More virtual reality!

And how about IGEM? Well, if MIT has one, Harvard has to have one of its own, right? Oh dear, look at all those simultaneous interconnected equations! Do you think they run it on a computer, or use a Magic 8-ball? Either way, it's virtual reality!

Poptech, will you now be rejecting the findings of this report too? It's just all just virtual reality, which you don't believe in, right?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The planet is in no danger.

That's like responding to fearful Manhattan residents after 9/11 with "Manhattan island is a solid piece of rock that'll be here for thousands or millions of years to come. You're overreacting".

No one is talking about "the planet". We're talking about its residents.

 

[Wowbagger]

They are not validated. I made no claims of any scandal.

A model that is not validated would be scandal. That would mean something failed in the peer review and replication process, etc.

Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (Fraser Institute)
Critical Topics in Global Warming: Supplementary Analysis of the Independent Summary for Policymakers (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)
Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (NIPCC)
Inadequacies and criticisms of the IPCC (PDF) (Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Science)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007 Analysis and Summary (PDF) (Science & Public Policy Institute)
Working Group (WG) I’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): A Critique (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)
Working Group (WG) II’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): A Critique (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)
Working Group (WG) III’s Contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): Be Sure to Read the Fine Print (PDF) (The Marshall Institute)

Perhaps someone with more time than I can go through these papers. But, at least we established the point that IPCC is not relying solely on computer models.

Cap and Trade is command and control of energy usage thus command and control of the economy.

Not the entire economy. There is more to the economy than energy and pollution policy, you know.

but I do support free markets and world-wide trade.

Funny, that is exactly what a lot of cap and trade market advocates also support.

The cap and trade system seems to be designed, from the ground up, to provide a good trade-off between flexability for free markets, and responsability for enviornmental control. Not the destruction of free markets. That would be stupid, if they did try to destroy them.

 

[Myriad]

You will find modeled results. I did not say I supported modeled conclusions but you asked for papers. If you notice some point out the negative effects from proponents models.

I asked for papers supporting your claim that significant economic harm will result from carbon abatement measures. You gave me papers about virtual reality.

Do you see the irony of trying to support your case with evidence that you explicitly claim you do not yourself believe?

You've said you don't believe in economic computer models. So why do you believe "crippling" economic harm will result, and what evidence can you offer that you do, yourself, believe in?

Respectfully,
Myriad

PS: Here's some nice multi-leveled irony. A Pew Center for Global Climate Change white paper, criticizing the shortcomings of economic modeling.

Conclusions

More sophisticated economic models and vastly increased computing power have made it possible to simulate the complex workings of the economy and process enormous amounts of data to estimate the likely consequences of different GHG-mitigation policies. Nevertheless, the results obtained using such models represent—at best—approximations. Moreover these approximations are highly dependent on the underlying assumptions and model structure used to derive them. In many cases these drivers are readily apparent; in other cases they are difficult to tease out because they are embedded in detailed aspects of the model’s structure.

(emphasis added)


Sound familiar?

Given the wide variation that exists between models and the significant uncertainties inherent in projecting future economic and technological conditions, as well as likely policy outcomes, the question arises: is there any value to projecting mitigation costs?

Follow the link to read the author's answer!

 

[Poptech]

Poptech, will you now be rejecting the findings of this report too? It's just all just virtual reality, which you don't believe in, right?

No I don't support quantitative economic modeled results. I have already said this.

Climate plans could cost families $1,600 (The Washington Times)
Duke Energy CEO: Cap-and-Trade Plan Would Raise Electric Rates 40% (The Wall Street Journal)

 

[Poptech]

A model that is not validated would be scandal. That would mean something failed in the peer review and replication process, etc.

They are not validated. Peer-Review does not validate results.

A peer review reality check (PDF) (Fraser Institute)

"Users of academic research must recognize that scientific findings in journal articles are not checked for accuracy and, unless proven otherwise, are likely not independently replicable."

But, at least we established the point that IPCC is not relying solely on computer models.

All of the alarmist conclusions including AGW theory are based solely on computer models.

Not the entire economy. There is more to the economy than energy and pollution policy, you know.

Energy usage effects the entire economy! The EPA will effectively be able to control the entire economy.

Funny, that is exactly what a lot of cap and trade market advocates also support.

Those that do, do not support free-trade, cap and trade and free trade are an oxymoron.

The cap and trade system seems to be designed, from the ground up, to provide a good trade-off between flexability for free markets, and responsability for enviornmental control. Not the destruction of free markets. That would be stupid, if they did try to destroy them.

Actually no it does not. It is a massive energy tax that allows government complete control over energy usage and production.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No I seek to stop using useless computer climate models and simply deal with empirical data and experiments.

It's statements like these that exemplify why computer science should be called computer engineering. How exactly are we to conduct an "experiment" that replicates global climate systems and predictive changes based on changes in variables? Build another Earth?

Slartibartfast and the Magratheans exist only in science fiction.

 

[Poptech]

It's statements like these that exemplify why computer science should be called computer engineering. How exactly are we to conduct an "experiment" that replicates global climate systems and predictive changes based on changes in variables? Build another Earth?

You can't which is exactly my point.

 

[lomiller]

Funny, that is exactly what a lot of cap and trade market advocates also support.

The cap and trade system seems to be designed, from the ground up, to provide a good trade-off between flexability for free markets, and responsability for enviornmental control. Not the destruction of free markets. That would be stupid, if they did try to destroy them.

More specifically it’s designed to internalize the costs of producing and using fossil fuels. Not just that they use market forces to set the value of the costs to be internalized.

The existence of externalities in the original business model means it never followed free market pricing to begin with and therefore should not be supported by anyone favoring a free market. Cap and trade, however, not only removes the externalities, it does so using free market techniques.

 

[Wowbagger]

They are not validated. Peer-Review does not validate results.

But, replication does. That is why I also mentioned it.

A peer review reality check (PDF) (Fraser Institute)

I politely remind you that this applies to both your favored empirical studies, as well as computer models. For whatever that is worth.

All of the alarmist conclusions including AGW theory are based solely on computer models.

That might be true. But, you have not talked about alarmists up until now.

Energy usage effects the entire economy! The EPA will effectively be able to control the entire economy.

The second statement does not follow from the first.

Cap and trade puts more control to the businesses, anyway. That is the "trade" part of Cap and Trade.

Actually no it does not. It is a massive energy tax that allows government complete control over energy usage and production.

I think you are confused:

* A tax is a payment to the government.

* Cap and trade involves the trade of credits amongst businesses. Similar to how cash is traded amongst businesses.

Someone misinformed you about the system.

More specifically it’s designed to internalize the costs of producing and using fossil fuels. Not just that they use market forces to set the value of the costs to be internalized.

The existence of externalities in the original business model means it never followed free market pricing to begin with and therefore should not be supported by anyone favoring a free market. Cap and trade, however, not only removes the externalities, it does so using free market techniques.

Well put!

(One of these days I hope to be as proficient in talking about climate science and policy, as I am biology. But, I suppose there is a small way yet to go, for me.)

 

[Patrick_R]

No, people with an understanding of cimate and El Nino/La Nina said the spike was noise superimposed on a rising trend. Denialists were claiming it was the sole cause of warming and that there wasn't a rising trend. It wasn't until some seven or eight years after that denialists realised they could choose '98 as a start-point and claim a cooling trend.



Or inventive.

Your presumption of a motive speaks poorly of your own thinking...

 

[Poptech]

More specifically it’s designed to internalize the costs of producing and using fossil fuels. Not just that they use market forces to set the value of the costs to be internalized.

The existence of externalities in the original business model means it never followed free market pricing to begin with and therefore should not be supported by anyone favoring a free market. Cap and trade, however, not only removes the externalities, it does so using free market techniques.

Government fiat is a not a market force.

Cap & Trade Is Not A Market Solution (Robert P. Murphy, Ph.D. Economics)

Enter cap and trade, which gives only the illusion of reducing carbon emissions without imposing costs on the average citizen. In this approach, the government distributes permits that entitle the holder to emit a specific quantity of carbon dioxide. The trick is that these permits would be tradable in the market, just as surely as shares to IBM or contracts on copper futures.

This, unfortunately, is why some have mistakenly viewed a cap and trade program as a “market solution.” Because the carbon permits are turned into property with a market price, they should end up in the hands of those who value them the most, i.e., the most efficient emitters. In theory this means that a cap and trade system achieves a desired reduction in carbon emissions at the lowest possible compliance cost.

For example, if the government arbitrarily decreed that every firm had to reduce its carbon emissions by 10 percent, this would cause unnecessary economic damage, because it is much easier for some operations to scale back emissions than others. If instead the government issued tradable permits allowing total emissions of 90 percent of the previous year’s amount, then the desired reduction would be much cheaper. Those firms that could scale back more easily would do so, and would sell their permits to those firms that found it too expensive to cut emissions. It is the elegance of this outcome that has hoodwinked market enthusiasts into supporting cap and trade.

Yet despite the superficial resemblance, cap and trade isn’t really a free market. The number of permits is an arbitrary scarcity imposed by government fiat. In the real market, resource prices indicate genuine scarcity. If an oil pipeline is attacked, the price of oil goes up, causing industry and consumers to economize on the commodity. This response is rational, because the available supply truly has gone down.

But if the prices of oil, coal, and other fossil fuels explode because of a cap and trade program, this won’t reflect genuine economic scarcity. Consumers will be forced to restrict their use not because there is less supply available, but because of a number dreamed up by Washington bureaucrats. This is no more a “market price” than if the government decided to sell people permits giving them permission to sneeze. (This actually makes sense, since exhaling emits CO2.)

Cap and trade is not a market-based solution. It relies on a political scheme to increase costs, and can therefore be justly viewed as a tax, stealthy or otherwise, on energy - the lifeblood of our economy. So here’s the real difference: cap and trade masks the causes of higher consumer prices much better than a straightforward tax. And that is precisely why so many politicians endorse it.

 

[Poptech]

But, replication does. That is why I also mentioned it.

Replication is not validation. Not with the "projections" of models.

Cap and trade puts more control to the businesses, anyway. That is the "trade" part of Cap and Trade.

That is the myth, it puts control in the hand of bureaucrats with the illusion businesses have control.

I think you are confused:

* A tax is a payment to the government.

* Cap and trade involves the trade of credits amongst businesses. Similar to how cash is traded amongst businesses.

Someone misinformed you about the system.

So the government does not collect money from cap and trade? Are you sure you know how it works?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Yes accuracy as in the "laboratory". I made no claim separating or specifically talking about experiments. The "laboratory" has to be 100% accurate. Again this is your constant confusion of which I have attempted to clear up OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Oh, so "accuracy = laboratory" now? That's quite an... interesting... grasp of language you have there. And just what the hell is a 100% "accurate" laboratory, as compared to an 80% or 50% or 30% "accurate" laboratory?



This is very entertaining. I can't wait to see what you come up with the next time you want to move those goalposts!

 

[Poptech]

Oh, so "accuracy = laboratory" now? That's quite an... interesting... grasp of language you have there. And just what the hell is a 100% "accurate" laboratory, as compared to an 80% or 50% or 30% "accurate" laboratory?

This is very entertaining. I can't wait to see what you come up with the next time you want to move those goalposts!

The goal posts have never been moved despite your wishes. Accuracy has always = laboratory (in my arguments to computer climate models). Please show me where I was referring to "experiments". Prove me wrong. You just fabricated a context and when I explained it you couldn't handle it because your own misunderstanding destroys your strawman argument.

 

[Wowbagger]

Replication is not validation. Not with the "projections" of models.

Both peer review and replication are components of validating a model. There are others, such as: evidential support, consistency, etc.

Projections are estimates, but then again, so is every scientific model, in paper form or on the computer.

That is the myth, it puts control in the hand of bureaucrats with the illusion businesses have control.

Then how come those countries that already use cap and trade systems are not turning into "command and control" countries? How come they continue to enjoy free trade?

How come most critics of cap and trade are against the proliferation of free markets in public environmental policy?

So the government does not collect money from cap and trade? Are you sure you know how it works?

The government establishes the system. But, they no more collect money from it, than they do from printing money. The idea is that companies that pollute less can sell their credits to those who pollute more. The market dictates the value. The government's role is in the form of infrastucture, to keep the markets alive.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The goal posts have never been moved despite your wishes. Accuracy has always = laboratory (in my arguments to computer climate models). Please show me where I was referring to "experiments". Prove me wrong. You just fabricated a context and when I explained it you couldn't handle it because your own misunderstanding destroys your strawman argument.

Uhhh, you started talking about experiments when you were discussing empircal science - duh.

You asked me for the quotes, I showed you your quotes where you were clearly talking about 100% accuracy being required for anything trustworthy in science, and you got stuck, again.

Now you're going with this silly line of argumentation in a truly sad & hilarious attempt to salvage some semblance of credibility?

Good luck with that, PT

 

[Poptech]

Both peer review and replication are components of validating a model. There are others, such as: evidential support, consistency, etc.

Validation as in matching the models projections to reality (not in the past).

Then how come those countries that already use cap and trade systems are not turning into "command and control" countries? How come they continue to enjoy free trade?

They effectively are, you do know what central planning is right? Government gets to pick winners and losers. Calling something "free trade" does not make it truly free. If you read the recent legislation regarding cap and trade there will effectively be no more "free trade" or rather what is left of it.

Europe is not doing so well...

Cap and Trade Doesn't Work (The Wall Street Journal)
Carbon trade scheme 'is failing' (BBC)
Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases (The Washington Post)
Germany Abandons Cap and Trade for Major Industries (The Weekly Standard)

How come most critics of cap and trade are against the proliferation of free markets in public environmental policy?

If you understood free markets you would realize how ridiculous this statement is. Public policy has NOTHING to do with free markets. Government is not a market force.

The government establishes the system. But, they no more collect money from it, than they do from printing money. The idea is that companies that pollute less can sell their credits to those who pollute more. The market dictates the value. The government's role is in the form of infrastucture, to keep the markets alive.

Obama's $646 Billion Cap-And-Trade Green Tax (U.S. News & World Report)

Oh they collect money from it...$$$ Billions.

 

[Poptech]

Uhhh, you started talking about experiments when you were discussing empircal science - duh.

You asked me for the quotes, I showed you your quotes where you were clearly talking about 100% accuracy being required for anything trustworthy in science, and you got stuck, again.

No you are wrong. Unless I say "experiments" it does not give you the right to imply what you feel like. You have been unable to prove I was talking about virtual experiments and not the laboratory. I've clearly explained MANY times this to you yet you obsession with sticking your fingers in your ears continues.

 

[MattusMaximus]

No you are wrong. Unless I say "experiments" it does not give you the right to imply what you feel like. You have been unable to prove I was talking about virtual experiments and not the laboratory. I've clearly explained MANY times this to you yet you obsession with sticking your fingers in your ears continues.

I'll let the record speak for itself, PT. You can rest assured that plenty of others here have read the record and come to similar conclusions to mine. But if you insist upon deluding yourself, go ahead - whatever makes you sleep well at night.

Just don't expect the rest of us to go along with it, especially when your arguments are laid out like this. Kind of sad, actually, when it seems the whole reason for your presence here is to convince us that you're right