Arctic Ice Melt = Accelerating GW

[CapelDodger]

You don't think that mechanics won't grumble about carbon taxes, and their effect on car sales, fuel costs etc?

There'l be grumbling whatever happens. This is the farming community we're talking about.

When land is sold for development (lets say 3 acres), it is bought at a premium price by a developer, who strange as it may seem, develops it. The local auctioneer earns a bigger fee than he would if the land was sold as agricultural land ...

But it's a one-off, not a continuing process. That's the difference I'm trying to point out.

And you think that 3 acres is better left in the hands of one man and five cattle?

I'm not carrying any torch for European agriculture - far from it. All my original post was (obviously stumblingly) trying to get out was some examples of the speculative and unquantifiable costs of either policy - laissez-faire or intervention. Agriculture is probably a minor issue in developed countries, and in Europe will be determined by the politics of the CAP rather than Kyoto or greenhouse warming.

I'd quite happily watch the Home Counties revert to pre-Norman forest. Especially with wolves, bear and wild boar.

 

[CapelDodger]

I fail to understand why you would quote my argument against the possibility of calculating the monetary costs of global warming (stating that it was solid), only to suggest that there is a way to calculate such costs (you say "knowledge [...] DEVALUED"; that presupposes a CORRECT VALUE, which can only be the market price of their knowledge - their salary, fee etc; but my argument mentioned that one can not know what market prices - whose salary, whose fee - to consider, because one can not know what locations will be affected and at what time, affected by what exactly, what production facilities will be on location then etc; you say "the LOSS of human capital"; now, whatever "human capital" means, it either has a market price, or it has not; if it has a market price, see above; if it doesn't, see below, the part about the measurement of non-monetary costs).

I was agreeing with your point that claims of an accurate prediction of Kyoto costs are highly suspect. In particular I think that human capital - knowledge, experience, personal networks, "culture" - is unquantifiable. It's what allowed Germany to recover so rapidly after WW2, and what makes it difficult to turn farmers into industrial shift-workers. It can be gained by education, it can be lost by evicting farmers and replacing them with sheep. Or cattle, as happens more often these days. The only way to quantify a loss or gain would be to compare projected output under the old regime and the new. Pretty tricky.

 

[a_unique_person]

We know that we will lose money if we comply with Kyoto. We don't know whether will lose or gain money if we don't comply.

This seems to be one of those "If you can't measure it, I'm not interested" arguments.

 

[Tudor]

I was agreeing with your point that claims of an accurate prediction of Kyoto costs are highly suspect. In particular I think that human capital - knowledge, experience, personal networks, "culture" - is unquantifiable. It's what allowed Germany to recover so rapidly after WW2, and what makes it difficult to turn farmers into industrial shift-workers. It can be gained by education, it can be lost by evicting farmers and replacing them with sheep. Or cattle, as happens more often these days. The only way to quantify a loss or gain would be to compare projected output under the old regime and the new. Pretty tricky. [/B]

1) I made no such point. Couldn't have made it, since I made the opposite point: costs of Kyoto can be calculated (not PREDICTED), at the PRESENT market prices (of course, not at future market prices) of energy and filtering technology.

2) The costs of GLOBAL WARMING can't be calculated (again, the costs of Kyoto can be calculated), at present market prices (a fortiori the costs of GW can't be calculated at future market prices).

3) You seem to know two things: that Germany has recovered rapidly after WW2 and that the fast recovery was due to the "human capital" (I assume you're talking about West Germany). I won't argue with the first part, but as for the second part.....pretty tricky indeed. How could one test such a hypothesis? How would you test it? Do you know of anyone who did test it? If it's not testable, how does one know it is true (or false)? Or you "just know" it?

4) You say: "The only way to quantify a loss or gain [of "human capital"] would be to compare projected output under the old regime and the new" (I'll assume that by output you mean the market value of the goods produced on a certain location). If that's the case, still one could not calculate the costs of GW (including the so-called "loss of human capital"), or benefits of GW, until it actually happens. Therefore, when considering the impossibility of calculating the costs of GW BEFORE it happens, an explicit reference to "human capital" is redundant.

5) I always try to write as rigorous and clearly as possible. Sometimes I fail. If that was the cause of the misunderstanding, I apologize.

6) Please pay special attention to 1) and 2).

 

[Tudor]

This seems to be one of those "If you can't measure it, I'm not interested" arguments.

If my argument against the possibility of calculating the costs of global warming seems to you to be an argument against doing research into GW, an argument against signing the Kyoto treaty or an argument against (or in favor) of any action, then you need to learn the basics of logic also (remember the advice from my first post?).
What rules of inference would one have to use in order to derive the sentence "I'm not interested" from the premise "I can not measure it"?
I predict that answering my question will take you about .....eternity.

Hint: You need available means (capabilities and tools), consequences of action AND preferences in order to derive action, any action (my argument against the possibility of calculation of costs of GW covered only the capabilities part).

Example: We know that adopting Kyoto will cost us money (present market prices). We don't know if GW will cost us money or bring us money (present market prices). IF I would also know that adopting Kyoto will stop or reverse GW AND if I would prefer to wait and take my chances with GW than lose money for sure with adopting Kyoto, only then I would therefore chose not to comply with Kyoto (or not caring).

Note that so far, I have given you no information regarding my risk preference or my opinion regarding the physical consequences of the Kyoto treaty, therefore you can not infer a choice of mine with respect to the Kyoto treaty.

But my choice is not important. What is truly important is the anatomy of a rational decision. In order to make such a decision, you need to consider purpose, means and consequences of action. I am trying to make clear that our means do not include the possibility of calculating the costs of global warming. Nothing more.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CapelDodger:
There'l be grumbling whatever happens. This is the farming community we're talking about.

Precisely, and there's another thing wrong with the original premise.

But it's a one-off, not a continuing process. That's the difference I'm trying to point out.

What difference? Are you suggesting that if houses are built in the hypothetical three acre plot, that the inhabitants will be hermetically removed from the community, not bothering with the wider community and it's wholesalers, auctioneers etc? Or that the hypothetical factory will go into production just for kicks, operating as a continuing process without having to market and sell whatever it is they produce? Are you? For someone with an overriding concern that human capital be utilised to it's fullest your opposition to our hypothetical three acres getting a massive infusion of human capital is strange.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Arctic Ice Melt = Accelerating GW

Typical AUP post. No new information at all in this "report". Just another scenario building exercise - "what we think will happen IF the temperature increases, blah blah blah"

Same old "facts" recycled in an expensive glossy publication.

All the old favourites are there including the beloved "hockey stick".

Also the same old misrpepresntations about glaciers, localised versus global warming effects, and ice cover/thickness. All of these have been addressed and degbuned many times over.

What this extremely expensive undertaking shows is the amount of money the global warming industry has to lavish on prjects that don't advance our understanding by the smallest of margins.

I met my friend at the weekend and asked him about the hockey stick.

His first reacion was incrdulity that I would waste time debating people with closed minds and their own agendas, when he has told be before that to do so is just a waste of time.

He said the 'hockey stick' is irrelevant. The temperature is climbing rapidly, and there is no debate about that. If the hockey stick is open to debate, it is of interest for those studying that specific field. His specialisation is not in that area, so was not prepared to offer a comment on the 'hockey stick' except to say that it was his impression that that whole debate is nit picking.

The science, as it stands, seems to be widely consensual that current GW is to a significant extent being influenced by human activity. The as a factor has been considered, but the warming does not follow the solar cycle. The hockey stick is about the past, and is of academic interest for what was happening then.

The science for the present, and this is based on science using the accepted scientific methods that appear to work well in all the other areas of science, is the AGW is a reality.

 

[a_unique_person]

bump

 

[Wolrab]

This scientist is claiming the Arctic Ice is just being shuffled around.http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSScience0104/24_artic-cp.html

 

[a_unique_person]

This scientist is claiming the Arctic Ice is just being shuffled around.http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSScience0104/24_artic-cp.html

The story appears to be twisting what he is actually claiming. The MSNBC story is talking about many aspects of GW, eg, permafrost melting, temperatures rising, etc.

This story is only reporting on one aspect, the volume of ice that has melted, yet it still reports and does not dispute the following

Satellite pictures have clearly shown that the surface area of the ice has decreased about three per cent a year for the last 20 years.

But the question was, How thick was it?

The submarine data generated headlines and cover stories from the New York Times to Time Magazine when it seemed to indicate that ice volume had decreased by 43 per cent between 1958 and 1997

Three percent a year for twenty years of surface is not under dispute, just how much thickness has been lost.

Three percent per year surface for twenty years is, goddam, how long is it since I did calculus, still a sizeable area that has been lost.

 

[BobK]

The state climatologist of Oregon doesn't seems to have much faith in the ACIA report, and he supplies references.
Full article

Arctic Air Temperatures
Naurzbaev, et al (2002) created a proxy temperature data set spanning nearly 2,500 years for the Taimyr Peninsula of northern Russia, all of which is poleward of 70° N. The authors studied tree rings-widths of living and deceased larch trees. They reported that "the warmest periods over the last two millennia in this region were clearly in the third, tenth to twelfth and during the twentieth centuries." The first two, they claim, were warmer than those of the last century. Twentieth century temperatures appeared to peak around 1940.
Chylek, et al (2004) analyzed Greenland air temperatures over the last 100 years. At coastal stations, "summer temperatures, which are most relevant to Greenland ice sheet melting rates, do not show any persistent increase during the last fifty years." The peak coastal temperatures occurred in the 1930s, followed by significant cooling, followed by warming; but current temperatures "are about 1°C below their 1940 values." In the highest elevations of Greenland's ice sheet, "the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2°C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987."

The instrumental record demonstrates a consistent trend as well. Polyakov et al. (2002, 2003b) studied a large area in the Arctic and created a history of temperature from 1875. They report that temperature peaked in the late 1930s, with 1937 the warmest single year. Since that time, there was a cooling, then a recent warming, but current temperatures have yet to reach the levels observed 65 years ago.

Oddly, the ACIA does a very poor job of documenting its sources of information. For such an ambitious document (it is hundreds of pages long, with stunning graphics and a very professional appearance) its science consists primarily of blanket statements without any sort of reference or citation. Were any of the references listed above considered by the ACIA team? It's hard to say - one can only guess "no."
The ACIA appears to be guilty of selective use of data. Many of the trends described in the document begin in the 1960s or 1970s -- cool decades in much of the world -- and end in the warmer 1990s or early 2000s. So, for example, temperatures have warmed in the last 40 years, and the implication, "if present trends continue," is that massive warming will occur in the next century. Yet data are readily available for the 1930s and early 1940s, when temperatures were comparable to (and probably higher than) those observed today. Why not start the trend there? Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Arctic Ice Melt = Accelerating GW

Whats that got to do with GW Bush going faster?

 

[a_unique_person]

The state climatologist of Oregon doesn't seems to have much faith in the ACIA report, and he supplies references.
Full article

Techcentralstation, "where free markets meet technology". You call that a scientific, ojbective, unbiased site? The whole point of the site is to push 'free markets', and compromise everything else to fit in with that idea.

 

[BobK]

Well, that's typical of you.

Evidently you can't challenge the message, so you challenge the messenger.

Did you even bother to read the article?

 

[jj]

Well, that's typical of you.

Evidently you can't challenge the message, so you challenge the messenger.

Did you even bother to read the article?

Did you?

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, that's typical of you.

Evidently you can't challenge the message, so you challenge the messenger.

Did you even bother to read the article?

Did you see his argument?

Recently the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) report was recently released by the Arctic Council, a self-described "high-level intergovernmental forum that provides a mechanism to address the common concerns and challenges faced by the Arctic governments and the people of the Arctic."

Into the ad-homs from the first paragraph.

The whole intention of the site is to push free enterprise. It is a non-scientific stance from the start.

 

[CapelDodger]

Naurzbaev, et al (2002) created a proxy temperature data set spanning nearly 2,500 years for the Taimyr Peninsula of northern Russia, all of which is poleward of 70° N. The authors studied tree rings-widths of living and deceased larch trees.

BobK : you should look up someone called Daly, who'll provide you with plenty of argument against the use of tree-ring data.

They reported that "the warmest periods over the last two millennia in this region were clearly in the third, tenth to twelfth and during the twentieth centuries." The first two, they claim, were warmer than those of the last century. Twentieth century temperatures appeared to peak around 1940.

These findings are inconsistent with the melting of Siberian permafrost that has been frozen for 11,000 years. Had the Northern Hemisphere been warmer for two centuries or so during that time, it seems remarkable that very recent and (according to the article) negligible warming has had this effect. Some explanation is required, but I suppose that's being worked on.

Oddly, the ACIA does a very poor job of documenting its sources of information. For such an ambitious document (it is hundreds of pages long, with stunning graphics and a very professional appearance) its science consists primarily of blanket statements without any sort of reference or citation.

The sources of the document are there to be seen. They don't have to be inferred from proxy-data. Visit Alaska, and tell people with tilted houses about re-analyzed and re-normalized Greenland sea-temperatures. You could even try telling me that my jasmine, which is currently in bloom, often does that in late November. In a north-facing garden in South Wales.

The ACIA appears to be guilty of selective use of data.

There really ought to be an irony smilie.

 

[CapelDodger]

... Or that the hypothetical factory will go into production just for kicks, operating as a continuing process without having to market and sell whatever it is they produce? Are you?

Are you suggesting that the local agricultural market-place will become the market-place for factory production? That's not often the case.

For someone with an overriding concern that human capital be utilised to it's fullest your opposition to our hypothetical three acres getting a massive infusion of human capital is strange.

One last despairing time : I am not expressing value judgements in this case. Change has costs, and change has complex ramifications. If one form of agriculture is replaced by another, there are transition costs. If rural workers move to factory work, the "infusion of human capital" comes from training, which has direct costs and there is also reduced production during the training. Old, productive experience is lost. Like tears in rain. Knowing what you're feeling when you're elbow-deep in a cow's rear is no help when your new job is on a computer help-line. Except in the most metaphorical sense.

 

[BobK]

AUP,

I frankly don't see any ad hominem in the statement you quoted.
Where is it?

How they describe themselves from their own report.

The Arctic Council is a high-level intergovernmental forum that provides a mechanism to address the common concerns and challenges faced by artic people and governments.

Don't you even question that they cite trends over only the past 50 years or so, and ignore data that is readily available from earlier times?

They did manage to sneak in that scholarly work called the hockeystick though. That was really impressive!

Seems to me all they've shown with this report is that the climate is variable, and that species have to alter their habits according to the changing conditions. Who doesn't know that?

It hasn't demonstrated any evidence of AGW.

Anyone wanting their report can find it in PDF format here

At least the pictures looked nice.

 

[a_unique_person]

AUP,

I frankly don't see any ad hominem in the statement you quoted.
Where is it?

The way they are referred to is snide and tart. You don't need me to tell you

How they describe themselves from their own report.

Don't you even question that they cite trends over only the past 50 years or so, and ignore data that is readily available from earlier times?

They did manage to sneak in that scholarly work called the hockeystick though. That was really impressive!

The hockey stick is largely accurate, the only question is some nitpicking. The hockey stick is also irrelevent. The temperature is rising rapidly, and will rise more rapidly. That is, the ice and snow that is melting is reflective of heat. With that gone, earth will absorb more radiation from the sun.

The only explanation for why the rise is so rapid is the anthorogenic contribution, nothing else in the models accounts for it.

Seems to me all they've shown with this report is that the climate is variable, and that species have to alter their habits according to the changing conditions. Who doesn't know that?

We are a species too, don't forget. Many species just aren't adapting fast enough, to all the modern stresses placed on them, and are disappearing.

http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/11/23/1100972391315.html

While I don't think we are going to die out, the stresses involved could cause massive havoc to us. Eg, part of the reason for the disaster in Sudan is competition for scarce resources.

It hasn't demonstrated any evidence of AGW.

Anyone wanting their report can find it in PDF format here

At least the pictures looked nice.

They are not demonstrating AGW, that is another area of the science. They are demonstrating the warming. What part of it do you have a problem with?