Congrats to US and China on Climate Change

[notyou2]

Shickingbrits please go back on your medicine

[BigBallinStalin]

This story is interesting (or it would be if I hadn't heard you complain about regulation on hempcrete several times before), but it misses one key point: there's a huge difference between a direct and transparent fee on a good, and regulation. I am not advocating regulation since I don't think the government can do a great job predicting what the correct energy sources are for our economy. Instead, I advocate for a fee on fossil fuels to represent the fact that every time you buy the fuel with the intent to burn it, you are doing harm to others, and that harm is not reflected in the price you are paying. (BBS and I have discussed this in another thread; I believe this is true because most consumers don't really understand the future impacts of global warming, and don't appreciate or care about the impacts it will have on people that live far away from them. However, we never finished this conversation, I think.)

Nope, we haven't. Here are the unresolvable issues:

Tax cap sounds great, and it's probably the best government policy for addressing the externalities of pollution; however, the optimal price is unknown, so the optimal tax is unknown (knowledge problem: besides, there's more than one price when it comes to that Pigouvian framework).

There's the demand revelation problem: what actually is the socially beneficial quantity of goods from pollution demanded.

Then there's the incentive problem: both you and I agree on a carbon tax, and let's say we rack our brains to get the best rate we could determine. What happens when we offer our plan to a few legislators? Well, they'll likely be favorable to it (because we picked environmentalist ones--since we're good at political entrepreneurship), and then they have to haggle with other legislators to pass the bill (at a committee level, then at the general assembly level).

Meanwhile, many underground deals will be made among legislators and special interest groups--while an overt exchange is made among legislators and voters (insert sentimental advertising campaigns--with the ongoing rage and stupidity of democratic interaction). After this political process (of nonsense), I'd expect to get a very fucked up version of our plan which will probably be poorly enforced or gouged to the point of ineffectiveness.

This is generally why I don't trust government to handle these issues, but utlimately, this conclusion is my opinion--informed by theory and by a smattering of empirical evidence on somewhat related issues. I'm open to refutation and discourse, but 'refutation and discourse' are not part-and-parcel of the political process. It's not about science; it's about rhetoric and generally zero-sum or negative-sum exchanges.

[Metsfanmax]

Tax cap sounds great, and it's probably the best government policy for addressing the externalities of pollution; however, the optimal price is unknown, so the optimal tax is unknown (knowledge problem: besides, there's more than one price when it comes to that Pigouvian framework).

I agreed with you on this one. With the current state of things that are knowable, any time we actually try to estimate the true social cost of carbon, the uncertainties will be so large as to render it a fairly useless estimate. However, one could be confident that a large tax (reasonably defined) is better than a small one (again reasonably defined), if one accepts the fairly large impacts associated with climate change. That is, better to err on the side of caution on this problem, assuming that the larger tax has a proportionally larger effect on decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.

There's the demand revelation problem: what actually is the socially beneficial quantity of goods from pollution demanded.

Sure, this is something to consider. But there are other considerations which compete with it. For example, we are doing some pretty severe damage to low-lying nations with our greenhouse gas emissions, but it's something that we may never directly feel the effects of here in the US (though we might, because of political instability that results.) Since different actors see much different outcomes from purchasing the same product, I'm not even sure that such a number would be practically useful if we could know it.

Then there's the incentive problem: both you and I agree on a carbon tax, and let's say we rack our brains to get the best rate we could determine. What happens when we offer our plan to a few legislators? Well, they'll likely be favorable to it (because we picked environmentalist ones--since we're good at political entrepreneurship), and then they have to haggle with other legislators to pass the bill (at a committee level, then at the general assembly level).

Meanwhile, many underground deals will be made among legislators and special interest groups--while an overt exchange is made among legislators and voters (insert sentimental advertising campaigns--with the ongoing rage and stupidity of democratic interaction). After this political process (of nonsense), I'd expect to get a very fucked up version of our plan which will probably be poorly enforced or gouged to the point of ineffectiveness.

This is a very real concern for us. However, note the current political realities in the US. With the new Congress taking place, there's no way to get the environmentalist-friendly legislators to push this through on their own. So at least with my lobbying group, we're focusing 100% on doing this with conservative co-sponsors, or not at all. That should hopefully minimize these effects -- revenue-neutrality of the bill is what attracts the conservatives in the first place. Obviously I can't guarantee that it won't happen though. But I think that a Republican Congress is a gift to us, in that sense.

This is generally why I don't trust government to handle these issues, but utlimately, this conclusion is my opinion--informed by theory and by a smattering of empirical evidence on somewhat related issues. I'm open to refutation and discourse, but 'refutation and discourse' are not part-and-parcel of the political process. It's not about science; it's about rhetoric and generally zero-sum or negative-sum exchanges.

Part of why I have to reject this view is that if we resign ourselves to this, it is guaranteed to continue. Citizens have to demand rational action from their government on relevant issues, and that's what I'm trying to do. It's not just about climate change or a carbon tax; it's about insisting that our legislators listen to those who don't have the same vested interests that they do.

(That being said, I have become more sympathetic to this view over time, and the scope of issues that I think government has a clear mandate to act on are actually quite small now. Climate change is a true tragedy-of-the-commons type problem and it's why I haven't given up hope for government to do something meaningful on this yet.)

[shickingbrits]

Maybe I'm not as good at calculating ROI as you are. In my world a $454 monthly savings works out to 5448 per year, which is 54.5% of capital expense returned. Or in the course of 25 years, 126,200 saved.

Mets, you say you are not the government. Who would you have levy the fees?

A 100% return to citizens? I think you know that that is impossible.

Mets

"2) This argument doesn't really make sense. The existing taxes weren't somehow encouraging use of fossil fuels; taxes generally serve to decrease demand, not increase it, due to the increased price. So, adding another tax to further decrease demand isn't a new conflict of interest, it's just a continuation of existing policy."

I have many issues with this. First, you are coming with a bit of BBS on this. Some things aren't voluntary exchanges. Increasing tax only offsets the lowest consumer when the exchange is involuntary, if suitable alternatives aren't available.

The second, "they are not encouraging fossil fuels". Of course they are. The taxes are discouraging the government from taking action against their self-interest. If you want to show me graphs on the Prius, then that shows a poor understanding of fuel economy. The VW Rabbit diesel had better mpg than a Prius more than 30 years ago, far more miles per engine and doesn't require rare earths. In other words, the life cycle of the Prius sucks in comparison.

When the Nissan Leaf came out, at least in China, it was restricted to government use. When the Ford Fusion plug-in came out, it was restricted to government use. While these have the same issues as the Prius, at least they give better mpg.

For a long time, the US government has tied itself, the economy and the world to oil. With a more widely available form of energy, the US would plummet in world standing. That is, the quality of life would increase everywhere, including the US, but in comparative turns, the US would be on the same level as a third world country. The world would be more balanced and small nations and individuals would not be readily exploited.

Imagine if in the 40's when Ford was starting to encourage biofuel that he was in his heyday, that the oil barons weren't as rich and powerful. At the time, Ford said that a farmer could run his farm for 100 years on a years harvest. So we start at 1% of harvest to cover fuel. From there we improve. The first cars were electric. What if improvements had been made on those over the last 120 years, what would the world look like today?

Speculation doesn't change the past, but it does provide insight on handling the future. It does show motives and centres of power and how power was directed.

When California legislated, within a few short years, the producers met the challenge, and then California reneged. Is it really an issue of poor technology? Is it lack of demand? Or are limitations being embedded for profit?

Total oil produced annually:

3.9 tillion litres. Canada tax roughly $0.60 per litre. US about $0.12 per litre. Lets say the average is $0.30 worldwide. That's $1.2 trillion in taxes from oil, all being used to increase demand on the USD.

Maybe the car manufacturers are powerful opponents and have a great incentive to buck this. Car manufacturing costs annually $1.6 trillion. Profit 1-2%. At 2%, that's $32 billion. So if these little buggers making $32 b worldwide want to mess with the government profits of $1.2 trillion, I think they would succeed because it would then increase their profit. Wait, I forgot, it doesn't increase their profit. The manufacturers would have the same profit, so they have zero incentive and a lot a powerful disincentive, fucking with the $1.2 trillion profit.

[Metsfanmax]

Mets, you say you are not the government. Who would you have levy the fees?

Of course the government would levy the fees. My point was that I am the one advocating for it here, so address your arguments to me, not to "the government."

A 100% return to citizens? I think you know that that is impossible.

No, it's not. British Columbia has been doing it for years.

"2) This argument doesn't really make sense. The existing taxes weren't somehow encouraging use of fossil fuels; taxes generally serve to decrease demand, not increase it, due to the increased price. So, adding another tax to further decrease demand isn't a new conflict of interest, it's just a continuation of existing policy."

I have many issues with this. First, you are coming with a bit of BBS on this. Some things aren't voluntary exchanges. Increasing tax only offsets the lowest consumer when the exchange is involuntary, if suitable alternatives aren't available.

Taxes decrease demand for everyone, it's just a larger effect on those with smaller incomes. But either way this point is not really responsive because I was just taking exception to your claim that the government uses taxes to stimulate fossil fuel emissions. The only way that could be true is if people burn more gasoline when it's more expensive (I think it's obvious why this is false).

Edit: it occurs to me that you may be arguing for the existence of a Laffer curve here. Let me know if that is what you are getting at.

The second, "they are not encouraging fossil fuels". Of course they are. The taxes are discouraging the government from taking action against their self-interest. If you want to show me graphs on the Prius, then that shows a poor understanding of fuel economy. The VW Rabbit diesel had better mpg than a Prius more than 30 years ago, far more miles per engine and doesn't require rare earths. In other words, the life cycle of the Prius sucks in comparison.

Sure, it's true that by having high fossil fuel taxes, the government might have an interest in not diminishing the amount of fossil fuels. But nevertheless, the US has its CAFE standards, British Columbia has a $30/ton carbon tax, and 20-odd other localities have some sort of carbon pricing scheme in effect. The inevitable conclusion this leads to is that there isn't only one government perspective on this. Most governments are far too large and far too complex to speak of the "interest" of the government. Gasoline taxes for things like highway repair are obviously just being used for different ends than a straight carbon tax would be, and they might have conflicting interests, but so does many, many things the government does. (Especially when you consider the conflicts between provincial/state and federal taxes.)

Regarding your argument about the Rabbit: it's a false comparison. First, the Rabbit was popular right after the height of the oil crisis; that is, it was only high fuel prices that encouraged innovation towards efficiency. This supports the hypothesis that a carbon tax would spur us towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. Second, the Rabbit is just one car. Not everyone wants to drive a Volkswagen. What matters is when the average fuel economy goes up across the board, so that no matter what the consumer's preference is, he or she can purchase a car that they like and is also better on fuel.

When the Nissan Leaf came out, at least in China, it was restricted to government use. When the Ford Fusion plug-in came out, it was restricted to government use. While these have the same issues as the Prius, at least they give better mpg.

Yes, but now these things are available to the consumer market. The government can't, and isn't, keeping these things locked up forever.

For a long time, the US government has tied itself, the economy and the world to oil. With a more widely available form of energy, the US would plummet in world standing. That is, the quality of life would increase everywhere, including the US, but in comparative turns, the US would be on the same level as a third world country. The world would be more balanced and small nations and individuals would not be readily exploited.

This is a simply false analysis. For example, if the US had gone full throttle for nuclear power starting from the 1940s, we still could have had world dominance in the energy market due to our technological superiority, if we had handled it well. We just went a different route. And we can still go a different route. Our economy is so large that whatever energy markets we invest in, we'll maintain relevance. And your biofuel example proves the same point. It didn't have to be oil.

(But again, direct your arguments at me, not the government. This argument you're taking is lazy. It's saying "here are the things government wants to do." When did we stop talking about the things the citizens want to do? Why is the default argument now "that will never happen?" That's ceding away power in a way that guarantees that only government interests matter.)

[shickingbrits]

Mets, you say you are not the government. Who would you have levy the fees?

Of course the government would levy the fees. My point was that I am the one advocating for it here, so address your arguments to me, not to "the government."

A 100% return to citizens? I think you know that that is impossible.

No, it's not. British Columbia has been doing it for years.

"2) This argument doesn't really make sense. The existing taxes weren't somehow encouraging use of fossil fuels; taxes generally serve to decrease demand, not increase it, due to the increased price. So, adding another tax to further decrease demand isn't a new conflict of interest, it's just a continuation of existing policy."

I have many issues with this. First, you are coming with a bit of BBS on this. Some things aren't voluntary exchanges. Increasing tax only offsets the lowest consumer when the exchange is involuntary, if suitable alternatives aren't available.

Taxes decrease demand for everyone, it's just a larger effect on those with smaller incomes. But either way this point is not really responsive because I was just taking exception to your claim that the government uses taxes to stimulate fossil fuel emissions. The only way that could be true is if people burn more gasoline when it's more expensive (I think it's obvious why this is false).

Edit: it occurs to me that you may be arguing for the existence of a Laffer curve here. Let me know if that is what you are getting at.

The second, "they are not encouraging fossil fuels". Of course they are. The taxes are discouraging the government from taking action against their self-interest. If you want to show me graphs on the Prius, then that shows a poor understanding of fuel economy. The VW Rabbit diesel had better mpg than a Prius more than 30 years ago, far more miles per engine and doesn't require rare earths. In other words, the life cycle of the Prius sucks in comparison.

Sure, it's true that by having high fossil fuel taxes, the government might have an interest in not diminishing the amount of fossil fuels. But nevertheless, the US has its CAFE standards, British Columbia has a $30/ton carbon tax, and 20-odd other localities have some sort of carbon pricing scheme in effect. The inevitable conclusion this leads to is that there isn't only one government perspective on this. Most governments are far too large and far too complex to speak of the "interest" of the government. Gasoline taxes for things like highway repair are obviously just being used for different ends than a straight carbon tax would be, and they might have conflicting interests, but so does many, many things the government does. (Especially when you consider the conflicts between provincial/state and federal taxes.)

Regarding your argument about the Rabbit: it's a false comparison. First, the Rabbit was popular right after the height of the oil crisis; that is, it was only high fuel prices that encouraged innovation towards efficiency. This supports the hypothesis that a carbon tax would spur us towards more fuel-efficient vehicles. Second, the Rabbit is just one car. Not everyone wants to drive a Volkswagen. What matters is when the average fuel economy goes up across the board, so that no matter what the consumer's preference is, he or she can purchase a car that they like and is also better on fuel.

When the Nissan Leaf came out, at least in China, it was restricted to government use. When the Ford Fusion plug-in came out, it was restricted to government use. While these have the same issues as the Prius, at least they give better mpg.

Yes, but now these things are available to the consumer market. The government can't, and isn't, keeping these things locked up forever.

For a long time, the US government has tied itself, the economy and the world to oil. With a more widely available form of energy, the US would plummet in world standing. That is, the quality of life would increase everywhere, including the US, but in comparative turns, the US would be on the same level as a third world country. The world would be more balanced and small nations and individuals would not be readily exploited.

This is a simply false analysis. For example, if the US had gone full throttle for nuclear power starting from the 1940s, we still could have had world dominance in the energy market due to our technological superiority, if we had handled it well. We just went a different route. And we can still go a different route. Our economy is so large that whatever energy markets we invest in, we'll maintain relevance. And your biofuel example proves the same point. It didn't have to be oil.

(But again, direct your arguments at me, not the government. This argument you're taking is lazy. It's saying "here are the things government wants to do." When did we stop talking about the things the citizens want to do? Why is the default argument now "that will never happen?" That's ceding away power in a way that guarantees that only government interests matter.)

I will address you as long as you address me. But "you" spend most of your time addressing the government. You don't and can't ever get me to pay you. You can get the government to make me pay them and then try to get something out of it.

You say that many places have a carbon tax in effect, and quote at $30/tonne. According to the most popular estimates from the changist crowd, they require ten times that amount to tackle the issue. It's nice to slip it in at a low amount and then once on-board, increase it.

No, not everyone wants to drive a Rabbit, and if they did other manufacturers would respond, cutting into VW's profits and re-establishing an equilibrium. The very reason it isn't in the manufacturers interest to spend on R&D.

Your analysis of my false analysis is false. Uranium has an inherent problems. Not widely available, poses many dangers and can be weaponized. If we had gone full throttle on uranium from the 40's, we would have no uranium left. If we had done the same with thorium, then the world be much further ahead than we are.

Again, back to addressing you. If you want to sell me something, then you need to offer me a benefit. If you say the benefit is my future and my children's futures, then you better be holding a gun to my head, because you have no clear and present danger to threaten me with even after 30 years of trying to find it.

Edit:

(But again, direct your arguments at me, not the government. This argument you're taking is lazy. It's saying "here are the things government wants to do." When did we stop talking about the things the citizens want to do? Why is the default argument now "that will never happen?" That's ceding away power in a way that guarantees that only government interests matter.)

When did "citizens" ever get to decide anything? Did citizens decide to outlaw weed, drop the atomic bomb, pay taxes, decide where the taxes go, decide to ignore thorium.

When did the government present an alternative for public debate that wasn't in their interest?

We live in a competitive society and the government is part of the competition. They have the voice, the funds, the means, the enforcement. People just get to listen and comply.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe I'm not as good at calculating ROI as you are. In my world a $454 monthly savings works out to 5448 per year, which is 54.5% of capital expense returned. Or in the course of 25 years, 126,200 saved.

It's per year. Sorry for the mix up.

So, are you selling wealth-destroying products to people? Sounds likely. How morally equivalent are you to Goldman Sachs?


You don't 'save' money after you sum it up 25 years into the future. You need to discount it into the present, so the present value of the investment can be compared with the PV of other investments.

[shickingbrits]

Uh

How you managed to turn a 87.5 percent reduction in heating needs at 0 cost to a 1% savings is beyond me. I guess I should have paid more attention in economics class.

Photovoltaics themselves, the part that you could add on at a cost aren't very cost effective. But they are considerably more so when you have significantly decreased your energy load.

The average person here uses 32,222 kWh for heating. If they rely on electricity, that is at a cost of $0.14251 per kWh. Reducing this by 87.5%, again at no cost, represents a annual savings of $4018. You can add the savings of water heating by around $70 per month, providing a saving of $840 per year.

The savings from the photovoltaics may be nothing or close to it. On the other hand, the population fronted at between $1.5-2.9b, estimated (it's not yet complete), to pay for a private utilities transmission lines. There were 390,280 households in my province as of 2011 (a number that probably hasn't changed). After paying for the lines, our rates per kWh have been guaranteed to increase to $0.17, you know, to encourage the private utility to build facilities cuz we desperate.

When the average person buys a photovoltaic they are paying several times the rate through middle men, and it would be very close on whether they could have been bought and installed in every home for the same amount as the taxpayers are giving towards transmission lines.

Anyways, you are busy trying to bury me, but a useful tip next time you consider an investment that pays you 2.4% per year, inflation is higher than that. The same inflation that exists on energy prices. Avoid such an investment.

[Metsfanmax]

I will address you as long as you address me. But "you" spend most of your time addressing the government. You don't and can't ever get me to pay you. You can get the government to make me pay them and then try to get something out of it.

I don't want you to pay me. You would likely come out ahead -- that is, you'd have more real income after the revenue-neutral carbon tax than before it. But the reason we have to use government here is one of incentives. If fossil fuels are cheaper than other sources of energy, people will use them. However, if there's a financial incentive to switch to renewables, that will then happen. A carbon tax would encourage this by making fossil fuels more expensive than the alternatives; if you stopped using them altogether, you'd get a free check (corresponding to your share of what everyone else is burning) until we switched off entirely. I'm not trying to take money away from the people, since I demand that it be returned.

You say that many places have a carbon tax in effect, and quote at $30/tonne. According to the most popular estimates from the changist crowd, they require ten times that amount to tackle the issue.

That's true. I pointed out merely to demonstrate that revenue neutrality in such a proposal is quite feasible.

It's nice to slip it in at a low amount and then once on-board, increase it.

Correct. If we instituted a $300/ton tax that was off one year and on the next, it would devastate the economy. It has to start small and gradually increase over time to give businesses and individuals time to react.

Your analysis of my false analysis is false. Uranium has an inherent problems. Not widely available, poses many dangers and can be weaponized. If we had gone full throttle on uranium from the 40's, we would have no uranium left. If we had done the same with thorium, then the world be much further ahead than we are.

I didn't say anything about uranium specifically. Just like the fossil fuel industry, the nuclear industry would have innovated if we had let it. (Indeed, it is innovating in places where the government is allowing it to, like China and India.)

Again, back to addressing you. If you want to sell me something, then you need to offer me a benefit. If you say the benefit is my future and my children's futures, then you better be holding a gun to my head, because you have no clear and present danger to threaten me with even after 30 years of trying to find it.

Even if you don't believe in or care about the future impacts of climate change, this tax is going to make you money. And it's going to improve the economy. What's not to like?

When did "citizens" ever get to decide anything?

This is the nature of democracy. If all you do is complain, then you're going to be doing that forever.

[DoomYoshi]

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but there may be a conflict of interest when the same government starts complaining about fossil fuel emissions and states they want to levy a further tax because of them.

1) Non-unique: there's usually a conflict of interest when the government collects any tax revenue, because of the way state budgets usually work.

2) This argument doesn't really make sense. The existing taxes weren't somehow encouraging use of fossil fuels; taxes generally serve to decrease demand, not increase it, due to the increased price. So, adding another tax to further decrease demand isn't a new conflict of interest, it's just a continuation of existing policy.

3) I advocate for a carbon fee where 100% of the revenues are returned directly to the citizen. In this way, the government cannot use the funds to further its own interests.

4) Why are you talking about the government and its intentions? I am the one who wants the carbon tax, as a citizen; I am not the government, nor a representative of it.

5) Obama has said on many occasions that he is worried about jobs, so there is a conflict on interest when he starts to tax incomes.

[shickingbrits]

I will address you as long as you address me. But "you" spend most of your time addressing the government. You don't and can't ever get me to pay you. You can get the government to make me pay them and then try to get something out of it.

I don't want you to pay me. You would likely come out ahead -- that is, you'd have more real income after the revenue-neutral carbon tax than before it. But the reason we have to use government here is one of incentives. If fossil fuels are cheaper than other sources of energy, people will use them. However, if there's a financial incentive to switch to renewables, that will then happen. A carbon tax would encourage this by making fossil fuels more expensive than the alternatives; if you stopped using them altogether, you'd get a free check (corresponding to your share of what everyone else is burning) until we switched off entirely. I'm not trying to take money away from the people, since I demand that it be returned.

You say that many places have a carbon tax in effect, and quote at $30/tonne. According to the most popular estimates from the changist crowd, they require ten times that amount to tackle the issue.

That's true. I pointed out merely to demonstrate that revenue neutrality in such a proposal is quite feasible.

It's nice to slip it in at a low amount and then once on-board, increase it.

Correct. If we instituted a $300/ton tax that was off one year and on the next, it would devastate the economy. It has to start small and gradually increase over time to give businesses and individuals time to react.

Your analysis of my false analysis is false. Uranium has an inherent problems. Not widely available, poses many dangers and can be weaponized. If we had gone full throttle on uranium from the 40's, we would have no uranium left. If we had done the same with thorium, then the world be much further ahead than we are.

I didn't say anything about uranium specifically. Just like the fossil fuel industry, the nuclear industry would have innovated if we had let it. (Indeed, it is innovating in places where the government is allowing it to, like China and India.)

Again, back to addressing you. If you want to sell me something, then you need to offer me a benefit. If you say the benefit is my future and my children's futures, then you better be holding a gun to my head, because you have no clear and present danger to threaten me with even after 30 years of trying to find it.

Even if you don't believe in or care about the future impacts of climate change, this tax is going to make you money. And it's going to improve the economy. What's not to like?

When did "citizens" ever get to decide anything?

This is the nature of democracy. If all you do is complain, then you're going to be doing that forever.

We have a fundamental disagreement on the issues that face humanity. We have a fundamental disagreement on how to go about solving the issues.

We had a war on drugs which resulted in 800,000 arrests annually for marijuana. Two surgeon generals were fired for conducting studies which resulted in marijuana being deemed as safe. No more studies were conducted over the next few decades while billions were being spent on enforcement, incarceration and lawyers. The law enforcement was discriminatory, took away basic rights, expensive, and harmful. And neither party said a damn word.

The system started locally and was expanded globally. You want to be in the WTO, you better prove you are enforcing against marijuana. Want a World Bank loan, better prove you are enforcing against marijuana.

So some people started saying this sucks. They pointed out all the problems and said we need to change it. They came up with different scenarios and tried to bribe the government with them. Please government, stop arresting 800,000 people a year and we will give you our money. This wasn't an acknowledgement that they had ushered in criminalization behind closed doors, for the direct benefit of several individuals and ignored the only medical evidence then and since. It wasn't this is wrong and we need to make up for it. It was, we will pay you vast amounts of money if you stop persecuting us. We will ignore the main reasons for criminalization and Hearst's offspring can be the richest people in their state and keep selling "green" products.

You can have the best intentions at heart, have the perfect plan, pretty graphs, but all you are doing is being part of a marketing campaign whose ends you have zero say in. To be honest, you have no idea what you are advocating for. Or you do and are lying.

Since I've been alive, the president has been republican for 20 years, longer than the democrats, and yet while a central republican tenant is no welfare, welfare was present throughout their terms.

Obamacare was written by the very insurers who it was written because of. As likely, any climate change legislation will be done with the Koch brothers stamp on it. You can put forth the best plans you have, and get a deal like the one with China and it will be your victory. It can have your name on it. Remember what Szilard said about his involvement with the A-bomb? Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it.

As for merely complaining about the government; by putting forth the challenges we face in establishing a better society, I am mapping the gauntlet. I would hope that if your intentions were true, then you would consider the obstacles instead of spending all your energy against yourself.

I work towards solutions that can be implemented on the individual level, so that they can be implemented by the individual. Trust isn't my strong suit. Maybe you should take a page from the book of a guy who has never been on meds.

[Metsfanmax]

We have a fundamental disagreement on the issues that face humanity. We have a fundamental disagreement on how to go about solving the issues.

Libertarians say something like this often. There is some merit to it, compared to what my perspective is. Once you start to pick up an understanding of the unintended consequences that are often attached to government policy, as well as an understanding of these conflicts of interest you are describing, it is easy to see major flaws in many of the legislative agendas that governments promote. Nevertheless, I do not think we have a fundamental disagreement on how to go about solving issues, because I also don't believe that it is government that truly solves problems. Instead, I am here advocating for a position that sometimes government is necessary to help set the correct framework in which to properly resolve disputes or problems. I am sure that you value a system of rights that guarantee that you will be able to do whatever it is you like, without intervention from others. So, you likely support a police force, as well as other limited government activities such as a judicial system. Even if you do not, you surely understand the motivation by which people would want to have that, completely independent from the idea that government is trying to resolve the disputes themselves.

Climate change is an issue where every day I engage in an action -- driving my car -- that is harming others right now, and will continue to do so in the future. People who use electricity created from coal are participating in a system that kills several thousand people per year directly from air pollution. These are harmful activities, where the standard mantra about leaving each other alone fails to apply. There does not seem to be a strong effort from individuals to change their behavior on this front. This is likely because it's simply the cheapest mode of energy generation in many localities. But people should pay for their pollution. That means either the courts should be enforcing a penalty for such pollution -- or, more reasonably in this particular case -- a fee should be paid. This will force you to consider your pollution when you engage in the same practices. A system where you can just spew toxic garbage onto your neighbors' land without penalty is not a free system.

Later in this post you said that change needs to happen on the individual level. I agree. However, if you can inflict damage on others without paying for that damage, then you aren't going to change. People have the capacity to change and use safer and cleaner fuels. But they aren't going to do so if they can use dirty and unsafe fuels without penalty.

To be honest, you have no idea what you are advocating for. Or you do and are lying.

I know precisely what I am advocating for. Why are you letting the government get away with this? You are arguing that since government will always corrupt a policy, that means we can never ask anything from the government, because we will never get what we want from them. But if we never ask anything from the government, we definitely will never get what we want from them. For better or worse, we have this structure of government. It plays a very important role in our lives. While change on the individual level is important, we cannot simply ignore the apparatus. I promise you that it will not disappear if you ignore it. So I will persist in telling elected officials that I want a revenue-neutral carbon tax until the day it gets signed into law. I will not accept blame if I do not get what I want. Why? Well, because if your hypothesis is correct, then my lobbying doesn't actually do anything anyway. If you really believe what you're saying, then you have to believe that I'm not going to be successful anyway, because the government isn't beholden to the interests of citizens.

I'm going to prove that wrong. I hope you'll join me.

[shickingbrits]

Unintended consequences. Provide proof that they are unintended. I, for example can quote the only 4-term president in history that directly disputes this claim.

Correct framework. Provide proof. I can list action after action that disputes this claim.

Driving my car is harming others. Provide proof specifically to CO2. I can not prove a negative, but can make it clear that it isn't the case to someone willing to be rational.

Air pollution killing thousands. Provide proof specifically to CO2. See above.

As for your second to last paragraph, please read Kafka's The Trial, or you can read the short story from which the book came, I think it's the same name. As for "my lobbying doesn't actually do anything anyway." I didn't say that. I said, "all you are doing is being part of a marketing campaign whose ends you have zero say in." That is, your advocacy does have an affect, it garners the moral authority necessary for the government to take drastic action against the well-being of its citizens. Such actions have time and again been successful, due to such advocacy, but have rarely actually dealt with the merit in the advocacy, which is what will happen again.

I will not join you. Time is too short to spend on the merry-go-round.

[DoomYoshi]

Shickingbrits, some consequences are unintended. The bloat of advanced democracy has been described for a long time, by a wide variety of people.

Let's take one example I am quite familiar with.

Here is a video from Afghanistan from last week or so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rinzryt1Wvw

Afghanistan is not an advanced democracy. In this video, they are trying what we in the West would call a road closure. They don't really have the legal terminology to refer to a road closure, nor do they have any procedure (or how effectively to do it). Nor do the citizens have any clue what to do in this situation.

In Canada, we can pretty expressly deal with these situations (from a legal perspective). We have clear laws demarcating media access, road closure signage, etc.

For a more extreme example, consider air traffic control in the US. They managed to ground every single non-military plane in the hours after 9/11. Can you imagine Afghanistan trying such a tactic? I should note that it would be easier for Afghanistan since they have less planes.

What I describe here are the intended consequences of government bloat. Committees, advisory groups, legislators, etc. took years developing these systems.

On the flip side of the same coin are the unintended consequences. For example, once the committees and advisory groups who designed these regulations were completed, many of them kept those jobs for years and years and years. Sure, traffic regulations (as opposed to laws which will always keep legislators employed) change slightly, but that department kept getting bigger and bigger in Ontario until Mike Harris tried to shrink things down.

So, the unintended consequence is that the government in the 30s and 40s created committees and advisory groups in the 90s. Every Canadian, provincial, American, state-level government has done this for years and years.

What is the best way to deal with the bloat? Perhaps if legislators spent the first year of their term voting on every law and expenditure still in the books and budget, they could pare down the past. However, a sort of voter fatigue would set in quickly, so it is unlikely that much would be pared down. Also, anytime a service is cancelled (God forbid you try to take away the training bra budget for the transgendered), politicians face lobbyist outcry.

I predict that the only way this bloat will end is in system-crashing revolution.

However, the bloat may be a good thing. One report I am currently working on posits that the main reason advanced democracies are better able to enforce a constitution is because it is evolved gradually.

For example, in the past few years some African countries had revolutions and tried re-writing constitutions. The "standard model" of a constitution comes in the wake of the falling of the Berlin Wall. All these new post-Soviet states crafted constitutions by taking what was then seen as the best clauses from advanced democracy constitutions. When the Africans copied this model, it didn't really help since they didn't have institutional support behind it. What I am proposing is that a constitution should be co-developed with the institutions of a country. Rather than the Egyptian constitution promising: "The State shall motivate the private sector to undertake its social responsibility in serving the economy and society."; it could leave that clause out entirely until the private sector is strong enough, and the State regulatory bodies strong enough to even try such a "motivation".
--------------------------
Onto the question of climate change. I once asked you in Global Chat (= Global Warming): how much carbon dioxide does it take to change the climate? You replied: "more than humans can produce". You demand proofs, but they are proofs you will ignore in any case. I have no doubt that metsfanmax will meet you on face level and try to deliver the goods, but I don't want to waste my time.

[shickingbrits]

More than humans can produce

We have reached peak oil of known financially viable reserves.

Or, we have used half our fossil fuels without being able to attribute the CO2 from them to any warming. While the rate has increased, and therefore the total remaining in the atmosphere, not being sequestered by natural processes, has increased, the opposite is true of any impact it has.

Thats a complicated way of saying that naturally my acre of land can sequester 100 tonnes annually and when emitting 120 tonnes during earlier times, only 20 tonnes was to remain in the atmosphere, while producing 300 tonnes, 200 remain. A closer comparison is now 240 tonnes remain, since we have practiced extensive deforestation.

So we have gone from leaving 20 tonnes to 240 tonnes in the atmosphere, in my example. We have gone from 250 ppm to 400 ppm. Intuitively, we would assume that there is a saturation point. 1/2 inch of snow covering reflects as much light as 10,000 metres of covering. Though this will be disputed by the changists, it is actually reflected in their analysis. They say a doubling of CO2 has a 3 degree C in temperature. Which means each additional amount of CO2 has less influence than the previous amount. Now, this data is speculative, on their part, but it does show that they understand that only so much outgoing radiation can be trapped. Another thing is that CO2 in the upper atmosphere actually prevents incoming solar radiation.

So for each amount of CO2, some gets in the upper atmosphere, some gets sequestered, and some stays in the zone where it may cause an effect. At some point there is saturation, in fact to suggest otherwise is to say that CO2 isn't very good at absorbing outgoing radiation. And we have already used up half of our finically viable known fossil fuel reserves.

How does all this interplay? Since we can't actually prove that any of the warming can be attributed to CO2 in the first place, we can't do it for modern times or for our historical record, releasing the other half of CO2 stored in the known finically viable fossil fuel reserves is not something that concerns me. We would have more to fear from the squabbling over the who gets to burn the last bit of oil than what that last bit of oil is going to do to the atmosphere. But I don't believe that this will happen either. I believe that thorium will come into play long before that, as soon as the greatest part of known supplies have been secured.

As for bloat, bloat is an inertial force maintaining the status quo and is an intended consequence of the rulers. Which is pretty much what you just said.

As for Africa, what sways of influence exist is an open question. As for the "standard model" comes in the wake of the Berlin Wall, is just another way of saying the World Bank and IMF dictated terms. Why influence remains an open question is the ability to achieve an education and a stronger non-aggressive counterpart to western domination.

[Metsfanmax]

Or, we have used half our fossil fuels without being able to attribute the CO2 from them to any warming.

...

How does all this interplay? Since we can't actually prove that any of the warming can be attributed to CO2 in the first place, we can't do it for modern times or for our historical record,

Scientists have indeed demonstrated that the warming until now can be attributed directly to our past carbon dioxide emissions. Would you like to see the evidence?

[shickingbrits]

I'd be delighted to.

Perhaps you can help me interpret these articles while at it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... laims.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 110737.htm

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-w ... study-says

I understand that the last one has been challenged by your community. But in conjunction with the other two articles, it seems quite interesting.

In the first, we are told that increasing HFC's by a hundredfold could be a way of avoiding a year without summer as happened 200 years ago due to a volcanic eruption.

So 100 times gives us the temperature equivalent of a global summer.

In the second article we see that all CFC substitutes constitute a effect of 0.012 W/m^2, HFC being one of them.

If we take the hundredfold comment to mean the total levels of HFCs in the atmosphere, which last 15 years in the atmosphere, and say that substitute CFCs are wholly HFCs, or that the 0.012 W/m^2 effect is solely derived from HFCs, then lacking a linear regression, a hundredfold would be equivalent to an effect of 1.2 W/m^2. And is equivalent to a global summer.

The two articles then seem to verify the third article, that warming was indeed caused by CFCs, whose use was decreased significantly after their ozone depletion effect was recognized. Though the article isn't specific as to the contribution of CFCs prior to 2000, it does state that the total effect from all ozone depleting substances remains at 0.32 W/m^2. Had the protocol not taken effect, the current rate would be at 0.65 W/m^2.

Given that HFC has an effect of a global summer at 1.2 W/m^2 and that all ozone depleting substances contributed 0.32W/m^2 and that they remain 15 years and longer in the atmosphere, what impact would this have on the temperature record from the seventies to now?

To me it would suggest that the initial 0.32W/m^2 would contribute to the equivalent of a quarter of a global summer, the reduction period would then maintain the contribution for 15 years and then we would see a temperature decrease following the life cycle in the atmosphere.

Does temperature data reflect this, or does it follow the steadily increasing amounts of CO2 and constantly warm each and every year?

[Metsfanmax]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... laims.html

I disdain anything found on the Daily Mail, but sure, I'll play ball. Just keep in mind that you should never treat this as a source of legitimate scientific information. They mastered clickbait well before HuffPo and BuzzFeed hit the scene. As you correctly indicate, very large volcanic eruptions can temporarily cause negative climate forcings, and the argument seems to be that we should just inject more greenhouse gases to compensate for it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120224110737.htm
...

In the second article we see that all CFC substitutes constitute a effect of 0.012 W/m^2, HFC being one of them.

Correct. The authors are warning that this could increase by a factor of 25 or more by 2050.

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-w ... study-says

I understand that the last one has been challenged by your community.

I've heard of this cosmic ray hypothesis before and it's got a lot of holes. Basically, what he's doing is saying that there's as very strong correlation between CFC levels and atmospheric temperatures. But correlation, as it cannot be said often enough, is not causation. One needs to have an explanation for why CFCs would be so much more important to the climate than carbon dioxide. This makes no sense. As the other article pointed out, the radiative forcing of CO2 -- 1.5 W/m^2 -- is five times larger than the radiative forcing of CFCs. More importantly, looking at atmospheric temperatures alone is silly. Ocean temperatures have been constantly rising for the last 15 years, so he would have to be able explain that. Global warming has not really "paused" as some people say -- you can be misled if you look only at the atmosphere, since it only retains like 2 or 3% of the heat trapped.

So 100 times gives us the temperature equivalent of a global summer.

If we take the hundredfold comment to mean the total levels of HFCs in the atmosphere, which last 15 years in the atmosphere, and say that substitute CFCs are wholly HFCs, or that the 0.012 W/m^2 effect is solely derived from HFCs, then lacking a linear regression, a hundredfold would be equivalent to an effect of 1.2 W/m^2. And is equivalent to a global summer.

Take a second and think about what that means in context. (I'm not saying I agree with that particular statement, let's just go with it for a moment.) The argument here is that a 1.2 W/m^2 forcing due to the injected HFCs would be equivalent to a global summer. Now, the forcing due to CO2 is even larger at 1.5 W/m^2. This means that if the article is right, CO2 is already causing more than that global summer's worth of heating, compared to the pre-industrial era. Of course, this glosses over important differences -- the radiative forcing is just one number, but it's not the only thing that matters. Another is the lifetime of the gases. As the Mail piece points out, HFCs would break down in a few years, so that their disruptive impact would fade as the volcano's impact faded. But extra CO2 can last in the atmosphere for a hundred years or more.

The two articles then seem to verify the third article, that warming was indeed caused by CFCs, whose use was decreased significantly after their ozone depletion effect was recognized. Though the article isn't specific as to the contribution of CFCs prior to 2000, it does state that the total effect from all ozone depleting substances remains at 0.32 W/m^2. Had the protocol not taken effect, the current rate would be at 0.65 W/m^2.

Given that HFC has an effect of a global summer at 1.2 W/m^2 and that all ozone depleting substances contributed 0.32W/m^2 and that they remain 15 years and longer in the atmosphere, what impact would this have on the temperature record from the seventies to now?

To me it would suggest that the initial 0.32W/m^2 would contribute to the equivalent of a quarter of a global summer, the reduction period would then maintain the contribution for 15 years and then we would see a temperature decrease following the life cycle in the atmosphere.

Does temperature data reflect this, or does it follow the steadily increasing amounts of CO2 and constantly warm each and every year?

It's actually very hard to answer this question. I'll be honest and say that I can't, though I'm not sure if anyone has. The problem here is that the Montreal Protocol very effectively decreased our usage of CFCs over like a five year timescale. That's a short enough change that it's possible to be mixed in with variations on the few year timescale. Also, ozone itself is a greenhouse gas, and depleting CFCs allowed it to be rebuilt. I can look into this further if you're interested, but I've never seen a quantitative estimate about this. If you look at the ocean heat content measurement above, you'll see that it's basically been rising the whole time. So I think it's fair to say that this was swamped by the effect from carbon dioxide.

[Metsfanmax]

I have no doubt that metsfanmax will meet you on face level and try to deliver the goods, but I don't want to waste my time.

I don't generally do it to prove the reality of climate change to anyone, but usually to teach myself more about the issue. Often people have very interesting or insightful questions that provide me with new perspectives on how to think about or argue this.

[shickingbrits]

I brought up CFCs because the article has a few points of merit on counteracting the cooling effects of a large deposit of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It highlights the point that CO2 has a cooling value in the upper atmosphere, which is no surprise. It points out the weakness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. But further, it points out the ability of water vapor to quickly negate the adverse cooling impact of CO2.

But to your graph. I suppose this is the clear evidence of CO2 measured warming as promised. First, isn't water heated by long-wave radiation? That is, you are trying to describe the heat added to the oceans by a very specific wavelength associated with CO2 and yet have failed to go from point A, the trapped wavelength and point B, the added heat to oceans.

Next, please explain the difference in atmospheric changes and ocean changes based what you explained above. Going from 10^21 J to10^23.5 J is such a small percent that it could be explained many ways. I believe that the scientist who addressed the Washington State committee on climate change did a good job of explaining it, without any causation from CO2.

[Metsfanmax]

I brought up CFCs because the article has a few points of merit on counteracting the cooling effects of a large deposit of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide has a net warming effect on the atmosphere, not a cooling effect.

It highlights the point that CO2 has a cooling value in the upper atmosphere, which is no surprise.

This isn't something that should be obvious to anyone. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared (longwave) radiation. It does this regardless of where in the atmosphere it is. Why should it ever have a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere? Indeed, the reason it cools the stratosphere while the troposphere warms is non-trivial and requires an understanding of radiative transfer. The basic idea is that the planet is attempting to stay in equilibrium and balance the incoming radiation from the Sun. Since we know that the troposphere is warming up, that has to be balanced by a cooling off somewhere else (higher up). Indeed, the very fact that the stratosphere is cooling is good evidence that global warming is happening. The surface of Venus' atmosphere is over 800 degrees Fahrenheit. Its atmosphere is almost entirely composed of carbon dioxide, and all the evidence points to a runaway greenhouse effect having warmed up that planet. But the upper atmosphere of Venus is actually colder than our own upper atmosphere!

But to your graph. I suppose this is the clear evidence of CO2 measured warming as promised.

No, that was just clear evidence of warming. It doesn't prove that carbon dioxide is the source. However, this can be done empirically by measuring the amount of longwave radiation absorbed by CO2. Basically, satellites measure the amount of longwave radiation at different parts of the spectrum, and compute an equivalent temperature. Higher temperature means more outgoing longwave radiation; lower temperature means less. This is a comparison over several decades.



This shows that in the locations of the spectrum where we know carbon dioxide and methane absorb a lot of light, there's been a marked decrease in the amount of longwave radiation. The only explanation for this is that they are trapping a lot more of it than they used to be doing. As you would therefore expect, measurements at the surface find more downward longwave radiation in the parts of the spectrum corresponding to these gases than they did in the past. It is therefore simply an empirical fact that these greenhouse gases are trapping a substantial amount of extra heat in the atmosphere.

Next, please explain the difference in atmospheric changes and ocean changes based what you explained above. Going from 10^21 J to10^23.5 J is such a small percent that it could be explained many ways.

The difference between 10^21 and 10^23.5 is a factor of 10^2.5, that is a multiplicative factor of 316. Another way to say that is a 30,000% increase. However, that's not quite the right way to read that graph. Subtract the beginning of the black curve from the end and you get an increase of about 25 x 10^22 J. It's not meant to compare to the actual amount of heat in the ocean; it's just an increase relative to a particular average. However, to get some perspective on how much that is, consider that the authors of the Levitus et al. paper where the data is coming from calculate that if all of this added 25 x 10^22 J were to be added to the troposphere right now, the average temperature would increase by 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

[shickingbrits]

Perfect, now we are getting somewhere.

I have a textbook here called, Sustainable Energy, Richard Dunlap. The second law of thermodynamics: "There are many ways of stating the second law of thermodynamics. In addition to the statement given at the beginning of section 1.3, a closed system will move towards equilibrium, the second law may also be stated in the following ways:

Heat naturally flows from a hot place to a cold place

or

The entropy of the universe always increases."

You said something of the sort: "The basic idea is that the planet is attempting to stay in equilibrium and balance the incoming radiation from the Sun. Since we know that the troposphere is warming up, that has to be balanced by a cooling off somewhere else (higher up). Indeed, the very fact that the stratosphere is cooling is good evidence that global warming is happening."

I like the planet attempting to stay in equilibrium. Sounds cute. On the other hand, the second law doesn't like "the troposphere is warming up, that has to be balanced by a cooling off somewhere else."

Nature doesn't like thermal gradients, that's exactly what the second law says, and when thermal gradients do come about, nature reacts with something called weather. Nature likes vortexes, they are the most efficient way to disperse something widely.

This is quite clear. Clear enough to be called a law. It's the reason we know the core is molten. The reason we put on jackets, seal our houses to the extent that we still have decent air, the reason it is colder inland than near the sea, the reason our extremities stop receiving blood from the heart first. I don't bake a potato and a magical cool spots appears and is equal and opposite, i.e. a cool pocket. The heat radiates outward creating a new, higher equilibrium temperature throughout my house, my house radiates energy at a higher rate to the surrounding environment and the equilibrium reverts to the original.

So please try again on explaining the cooling effect of CO2 in the stratosphere. NASA has some research explaining the phenomenon. CO2 reflects solar irradiation in the upper atmosphere. CO2 prevents heat from reaching the land and seas where the surface volume can hold the heat for any length of time.

"The only explanation for this is that they are trapping a lot more of it than they used to be doing."

No, that is far from the only explanation. It's not like CO2 is chilling all by itself. It has friends. The same thing that happens to the heat of the baking potato, happens to the heat that strikes the earth. The surface of the earth can absorb light in the form of heat, because it has surface volume area, it can retain it, it will transfer that heat to the thing that can absorb it, which in many cases is water. Water has a high specific heat capacity. 1 cm^3 can absorb 4185.5 J per K. Since heat can only go from hot to cold, that means water heats up more slowly than the surroundings, and will absorb all the heat until it has reached the surrounding temperature before the surrounding temperature will rise or until it has overcome another thermodynamic barrier, a simple example of this principle is boiling water in a leather bag. The leather won't burn because as soon as it gets hotter than the water, it transfers the heat over, thereby never reaching combustion temperatures even though it is being subjected to them in contact with the flames.

Heat flows from hot to cold. Water vapour takes the heat upward until it has reached equilibrium with the surroundings, who then reach equilibrium with the greater surroundings giving off the heat and then returning the equilibrium temperature of the water vapour to a lower state.

Therefore researchers at John Hopkins came to the conclusion that water played a mitigating role in the ability of CO2 to cause global warming.

There are other cycles than carbon, and the water cycle is the reason for life. It is vastly more important than the carbon cycle in climate. Carbon in the upper atmosphere reflects heat that would otherwise be absorbed at the surface. It explains why a volcano spewing out as much CO2 as humans cause in a year, at a time of much lower overall CO2 levels, can cause a year without summer. Nature acts to dissipate heat, but quite in the opposite of how you propose. Thermal gradients do not magical appear, they appear according to different atmospheric pressures, which interact with each other. When a large enough gradient appears, the gradient creates weather and dissipates the energy.

As you can see in the following graph



This shows the planet attempting to achieve equilibrium, using water.

But let's assume that thermal gradients work the way you think. As you said "Since we know that the troposphere is warming up, that has to be balanced by a cooling off somewhere else (higher up). Indeed, the very fact that the stratosphere is cooling is good evidence that global warming is happening. " So let me try. Since we know that the surface temperature is warming up, that has to be balanced off somewhere else (lower down). Indeed, the very fact that the bottom of the ocean is cooling is good evidence that the surface temperature is rising.

[Metsfanmax]

I like the planet attempting to stay in equilibrium. Sounds cute. On the other hand, the second law doesn't like "the troposphere is warming up, that has to be balanced by a cooling off somewhere else."

Nature doesn't like thermal gradients, that's exactly what the second law says, and when thermal gradients do come about, nature reacts with something called weather. Nature likes vortexes, they are the most efficient way to disperse something widely.

This is quite clear. Clear enough to be called a law. It's the reason we know the core is molten. The reason we put on jackets, seal our houses to the extent that we still have decent air, the reason it is colder inland than near the sea, the reason our extremities stop receiving blood from the heart first. I don't bake a potato and a magical cool spots appears and is equal and opposite, i.e. a cool pocket. The heat radiates outward creating a new, higher equilibrium temperature throughout my house, my house radiates energy at a higher rate to the surrounding environment and the equilibrium reverts to the original.

The atmospheric system is more complicated than just an isothermal ball of gas, as you indicate. Thermodynamic equilibrium is an important foundational aspect, but it doesn't apply to the Earth as a whole to mean that the system reaches a single equilibrium temperature. This is true for many reasons. Even without complicated things like weather and convection, there would still be gravity. Plus, the Earth is not a closed system. The Sun can radiate energy into it, and it can radiate energy back out.

Instead, typically what does apply is called local thermodynamic equilbrium. Any given patch of the atmosphere will attempt to come into a thermodynamic equilibrium state, and that's generally assumed so that we can even speak of the temperature at a given point in the atmosphere.

But all of this is a red herring, because when I said "equilibrium" I did not mean thermodynamic equilibrium. I meant a system that is stable, i.e. not changing in time. That's generally what physicists mean when they are referring to the equilibrium of an atmosphere; but, I can understand why you were confused. One can write down equations for what an equilibrium atmosphere looks like, and it's generally some combination of temperature, pressure and density that is static with time. Notably, it won't be one that has only a single temperature. Instead, if everything is nice and static with time, then the amount of energy in the system won't be changing with time. This is the key assumption of an atmosphere in equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation: it has to radiate out to space as much heat as it is getting pumped into it. If that is not the case, then the energy is building up somewhere. And at that point, the temperature is going to continue to rise, until it's pumping out enough energy to balance the incoming energy.

All of this is to say that I can't really answer the question you're asking, because you're making some incorrect assumptions about the way the atmosphere works.

So please try again on explaining the cooling effect of CO2 in the stratosphere.

I agree that my description was a hack, and may have been misleading. Physicists use energy conservation as an intuitive guide to what must happen, but it's not always obvious how the physics will play out to guarantee it.

Let's describe it in different terms. Suppose you increase the concentration of carbon dioxide uniformly throughout the atmosphere. The troposphere will warm for the reasons already discussed: the air is thick enough there that radiation from the ground is trapped by the carbon dioxide, and more CO2 means more trapped heat. So the troposphere warms. However, the stratosphere is very thin. So, the carbon dioxide will have the effect of radiating away some heat, but it's not absorbing enough from below to compensate, so energy is lost and it must cool. We can make this even simpler -- assume that the stratosphere doesn't absorb any energy at all. This is not a terrible approximation because of how thin it is. Then, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will always tend to decrease the temperature. CO2 is good at emitting energy, and so it will absorb energy from the dominant constituents (nitrogen, oxygen) and emit it to the infrared, losing it permanently. This will lead to a new equilbrium at a lower temperature. This is slightly complicated, so we can go through it in more detail if you like.

CO2 reflects solar irradiation in the upper atmosphere. CO2 prevents heat from reaching the land and seas where the surface volume can hold the heat for any length of time.

Reflection is not an important process here, especially in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is so thin that you can basically neglect direct reflection of sunlight in the upper atmosphere. Similarly, for longwave radiation the dominant contributor to what keeps the energy in is not scattering/reflection, but absorption. Going any further would involve a discussion of quantum mechanics. Just accept it as given that in this part of the spectrum, CO2 is really efficient at absorbing light, but the amount scattered would be very much less. In the visible (shortwave) part, neither process is important. So basically, this hypothesis doesn't hold water.

No, that is far from the only explanation. It's not like CO2 is chilling all by itself. It has friends.

You need to pay closer attention to the chart. The decrease in radiation is not happening simultaneously at all wavelengths. Instead, it is happening at precisely the same wavelengths where we know that carbon dioxide and methane (and ozone, etc.) have absorption bands. In order for any other hypothesis to explain the decreased amount of outgoing radiation, it would need to explain how it could generate decreases at precisely the same wavelengths that mimic carbon dioxide and methane, and not any others, without actually involving carbon dioxide and methane. Needless to say, we can discard that hypothesis.

[shickingbrits]

I like the planet attempting to stay in equilibrium. Sounds cute. On the other hand, the second law doesn't like "the troposphere is warming up, that has to be balanced by a cooling off somewhere else."

Nature doesn't like thermal gradients, that's exactly what the second law says, and when thermal gradients do come about, nature reacts with something called weather. Nature likes vortexes, they are the most efficient way to disperse something widely.

This is quite clear. Clear enough to be called a law. It's the reason we know the core is molten. The reason we put on jackets, seal our houses to the extent that we still have decent air, the reason it is colder inland than near the sea, the reason our extremities stop receiving blood from the heart first. I don't bake a potato and a magical cool spots appears and is equal and opposite, i.e. a cool pocket. The heat radiates outward creating a new, higher equilibrium temperature throughout my house, my house radiates energy at a higher rate to the surrounding environment and the equilibrium reverts to the original.

The atmospheric system is more complicated than just an isothermal ball of gas, as you indicate. Thermodynamic equilibrium is an important foundational aspect, but it doesn't apply to the Earth as a whole to mean that the system reaches a single equilibrium temperature. This is true for many reasons. Even without complicated things like weather and convection, there would still be gravity. Plus, the Earth is not a closed system. The Sun can radiate energy into it, and it can radiate energy back out.

Instead, typically what does apply is called local thermodynamic equilbrium. Any given patch of the atmosphere will attempt to come into a thermodynamic equilibrium state, and that's generally assumed so that we can even speak of the temperature at a given point in the atmosphere.

But all of this is a red herring, because when I said "equilibrium" I did not mean thermodynamic equilibrium. I meant a system that is stable, i.e. not changing in time. That's generally what physicists mean when they are referring to the equilibrium of an atmosphere; but, I can understand why you were confused. One can write down equations for what an equilibrium atmosphere looks like, and it's generally some combination of temperature, pressure and density that is static with time. Notably, it won't be one that has only a single temperature. Instead, if everything is nice and static with time, then the amount of energy in the system won't be changing with time. This is the key assumption of an atmosphere in equilibrium with the incoming solar radiation: it has to radiate out to space as much heat as it is getting pumped into it. If that is not the case, then the energy is building up somewhere. And at that point, the temperature is going to continue to rise, until it's pumping out enough energy to balance the incoming energy.

All of this is to say that I can't really answer the question you're asking, because you're making some incorrect assumptions about the way the atmosphere works.

So please try again on explaining the cooling effect of CO2 in the stratosphere.

I agree that my description was a hack, and may have been misleading. Physicists use energy conservation as an intuitive guide to what must happen, but it's not always obvious how the physics will play out to guarantee it.

Let's describe it in different terms. Suppose you increase the concentration of carbon dioxide uniformly throughout the atmosphere. The troposphere will warm for the reasons already discussed: the air is thick enough there that radiation from the ground is trapped by the carbon dioxide, and more CO2 means more trapped heat. So the troposphere warms. However, the stratosphere is very thin. So, the carbon dioxide will have the effect of radiating away some heat, but it's not absorbing enough from below to compensate, so energy is lost and it must cool. We can make this even simpler -- assume that the stratosphere doesn't absorb any energy at all. This is not a terrible approximation because of how thin it is. Then, adding CO2 to the atmosphere will always tend to decrease the temperature. CO2 is good at emitting energy, and so it will absorb energy from the dominant constituents (nitrogen, oxygen) and emit it to the infrared, losing it permanently. This will lead to a new equilbrium at a lower temperature. This is slightly complicated, so we can go through it in more detail if you like.

CO2 reflects solar irradiation in the upper atmosphere. CO2 prevents heat from reaching the land and seas where the surface volume can hold the heat for any length of time.

Reflection is not an important process here, especially in the stratosphere. The atmosphere is so thin that you can basically neglect direct reflection of sunlight in the upper atmosphere. Similarly, for longwave radiation the dominant contributor to what keeps the energy in is not scattering/reflection, but absorption. Going any further would involve a discussion of quantum mechanics. Just accept it as given that in this part of the spectrum, CO2 is really efficient at absorbing light, but the amount scattered would be very much less. In the visible (shortwave) part, neither process is important. So basically, this hypothesis doesn't hold water.

No, that is far from the only explanation. It's not like CO2 is chilling all by itself. It has friends.

You need to pay closer attention to the chart. The decrease in radiation is not happening simultaneously at all wavelengths. Instead, it is happening at precisely the same wavelengths where we know that carbon dioxide and methane (and ozone, etc.) have absorption bands. In order for any other hypothesis to explain the decreased amount of outgoing radiation, it would need to explain how it could generate decreases at precisely the same wavelengths that mimic carbon dioxide and methane, and not any others, without actually involving carbon dioxide and methane. Needless to say, we can discard that hypothesis.

But all of this is a red herring, because when I said "equilibrium" I did not mean thermodynamic equilibrium. I meant a system that is stable, i.e. not changing in time.

Is it possible to have a useful result without considering time? Is it possible to have a result when considering time? I find it interesting how the laws of thermodynamics are considered a "red herring" when talking about global warming, at least to a changist.

I am making some incorrect assumptions, not you. Interesting.

Next big section, which makes almost no sense, I'd be happy to go through more thoroughly. Let's begin with solar panels. Solar panels absorb light at certain wavelengths and produce energy based on the absorbed light. A kid recently invented a solar panel which can absorb more wavelengths, thereby increasing the amount of energy created. What does this mean for CO2?

"Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

So 95% of infrared is reflected back into space by CO2 and NO. At the absorption wavelength lower down, how much is diverted from leaving the earth? Where is it diverted to?

Even, if as you say there is far less CO2 in the stratosphere to divert the infrared, it diverts far more than it collects lower down. Lower down is the domain of water. Water dictates the thermal action of the lower atmosphere.

So in other words, what has been scientifically shown and studiously ignored by changists, is that CO2 emissions themselves perform a balancing act depending on where they are in the atmosphere. Or, a volcanic eruption of CO2 can cause a year without summers. What has also been scientifically proven and ignored by changists is that water is the dominant player in thermal activity in the lower atmosphere. Or, when you say that the CO2's emission spectrum is not witnessed and show a nice chart of it, how have you chosen to ignore water vapour's role? Third, other much more important GHGs are in play. Fourth, taking a local equilibrium is absolute nonsense. It is like me calculating the heat requirements of a building while assuming that the building is not impacted by the environment, i.e. each and every house doesn't require any heating and any heating which occurs will never dissipate.

When NASA says that 95% of infrared is reflected, and you state that this is not important, when there are thermodynamic laws which you state are not important, when just about everything you state requires a supposition that is not real to determine your effect, the result is quite simple: no one gives a damn about your analysis.

Now if we went to legislators with the information present in this thread and asked them to make policy decision based on it, what do you think would happen?

As you have a greater consensus, and as your advocacy provides a better route to power and wealth, they would likely side with you. On the other hand, since you haven't actually convinced them of anything, they are siding with you merely for the wealth and control that your advocacy gives them the authority to demand. As such, they will dictate policy based on you only in regards to wealth and power, and form policy based on the reality which is that policy is not needed.

Unless you can come to terms with the opposing effects of CO2 based global warming, i.e. follow the science, then all you are saying is "Tax the people, they can't escape emitting CO2, here's a way to tax people indefinitely."

So, look in the mirror and say this, "Warming has stopped because CFCs have stopped, CO2 balanced itself in the upper atmosphere, and water dissipated the remaining heat. We have consumed half of the known financially viable reserves of fossil fuels without creating a major impact because of these and other processes. Depleting the next half causes a far greater threat from energy depletion, but alternatives are already present. The problem is with pollution, which the government has been working hand in hand with industry in allowing. The solution is to provide better means to people to deal with their needs in a non-polluting way, which will be accomplished despite government, not through it."