We know we emit suffates in addition to CO2. It would be plain stupid to ignore the influence of the former and including only the influence of the later.
A bigger problem is that the Earth has warmed and cooled off without human caused carbon forcing. Also although the greenhouse effect is a real thing, the extrapolations they take from the small effect CO2 would have (in essence multiplying it) is also pretty shaky.
Finally back to a previous point, does CO2 explain the warming from about 1910 to 1940? I think we need to use your sulfates (we didn’t have much for scrubbers at the time) in this discussion.
The Whistler - 05:05pm on 05/11/2008
You should know perfectly well that calculus-based economic theories exist.
I never said they didn’t; I only said that they, being “theories” aren’t necessarily relevant to the real world, specifically running a business in the private sector. If you don’t make a profit in the short term, you aren’t around for the long term.
You are denying the scientific basis of your own claimed field of study.
I’m doing no such thing; I’m just trying to bring some reality to what seems to be a fantasy world for you. Try running a business(and succeeding), then get back to me about your economic theories.
robert108 - 06:05pm on 05/11/2008
Carrick: A quarter of a degree C, net, in a hundred years is not “evidence”, and could be entirely due to measurement error. All the rest is supposition.
robert108 - 06:05pm on 05/11/2008
Robert108, the fact that mathematical theory gets used in economic modeling is not fantasy, it’s practical reality: Finance companies hire mathematicians and physicists to perform exactly the sort of optimization problems we are talking about here, and they do so because it confers an economic advantage for them. See computational finance for more on this.
So when you say (I assume this was misspoken) Since economics is the study of human behavior, a hypothetical mathematical model is not applicable you are clearly in error.
Carrick - 06:05pm on 05/11/2008
Whistler, hopefully we can both sign on to the fact that the classical greenhouse gas effect is real, and important for maintaining heat on the Earth (I forget the exact number, but it raises the temperature by something like 50°C over what it would be without it), and further that CO2 plays an important role in that (perhaps as much as 8% of the total effect).
I would also suggest that we would agree that we don’t fully understand all of the climate feedbacks in the system, and that it has been the tendency of the global warming advocates to only consider those feedback mechanisms which yield a net positive gain to temperature.
I also think we both agree that the CO2 effect (whatever it is) is probably smaller than the global warming advocates claim, and that for most of the 20th century natural fluctuations have dominated global climate change. So while global climate change is real, most of that is not associated with human activity, at least to this point.
Further we would agree, I believe, that most of the hoopla associated with global warming is a tactic used by socialists and other anti-industrial types who are using this as a pretext for extending the control of the central government over normal citizens, or for undermining our free market system. That is why they find true free-market based solutions so frightening, especially if they come from Exxon-Mobile or any other “evil corporation”.
I think our main point of divergence is that I am simply saying that assuming there are no negative feedback mechanisms at play, that what we know about the physics of greenhouse gases suggests that we can realistically reach the level of CO2 concentration needed to significantly modify the Earth’s climate. And by significantly, I mean significant on a human-impact scale, not just on “can we measure it” scale.
While it may be true that there are negative feedback mechanism (e.g., Roy Spencer’s Iris Effect) that moderate climate, I have to regard such mechanisms with the same degree of skepticism that I hold e..g the water vapor-CO2 positive feedback mechanism.
Anyway that’s my take on it. Interesting discussion. Also interested in your feedback on my thoughts here.
Carrick - 07:05pm on 05/11/2008
you are clearly in error.
Run a business that enjoys long term success without short term profit(in the private sector), and then you will see who is “in error”. Your math models are only for aggregate functions, but for a business to succeed, the real world requires short term success to have long term success. Of course, since govt dominates any market it enters, it simply confiscates what it needs, and calls that long term success. It isn’t.
BTW, water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect.
robert108 - 08:05pm on 05/11/2008
Robert108, You can have short term losses, if you plan for them, in order to have long term success. Most publicly owned companies have to satisfy their stockholders, which reduces the opportunity for long term vision. Lose money three years in a row, regardless what happens in five years, and see what happens to the CEO.
Perhaps you can expand on what you (personally that is) mean by an “aggregate function” and what the implications are for that in the question of the optimization of nonlinear systems with feedback. I’m totally unclear where you are going with this (aggregate functions as I know them have nothing to say about this one way or the other).
Water vapor accounts for 70-80 of the total classic greenhouse effect . That’s not the “vast majority”. CO2, methane, CO3, NO and other trace gases account for roughly 20%.
Carrick - 08:05pm on 05/11/2008
BTW, water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse
effect.
If only humans and other mammals could be made to stop emitting so much of it!
Damn those upper life forms.
Kevin - 08:05pm on 05/11/2008
Carrick: In my book, 80% is a “vast majority”.
Mathematical economic analysis is based on things that have already happened, and real world economics is about what is going on right now. I’m sure you can devise a very limited scenario where one can claim long term success without short term success, but it would be a very special case, and not relevant to real world economics, which is what I have been saying all along.
I don’t even understand the relevance of your argument to our economy, unless it’s some kind of justification for govt interference in the market, as an excuse for more socialism. As I said before, the govt can claim long term “success” without short term success, but it’s only because the govt dominates every market it enters, and ends up determining the parameters and eliminating competition. Besides, govt can always confiscate the money it needs to keep operating, and can also keep its own books, so real world comparison is nonsensical. The govt doesn’t operate by the rules of the market.
robert108 - 09:05pm on 05/11/2008
But the warm-up prior to WW2 could not have been caused by man. At least that’s the way I understand it.
TW: Here’s the deal: If it’s getting warmer, it’s global warming; if it’s getting cooler, it’s global warming, but something is “masking” it.
A bigger problem is that the Earth has warmed and cooled off without human caused carbon forcing. Also although the greenhouse effect is a real thing, the extrapolations they take from the small effect CO2 would have (in essence multiplying it) is also pretty shaky.
Finally back to a previous point, does CO2 explain the warming from about 1910 to 1940? I think we need to use your sulfates (we didn’t have much for scrubbers at the time) in this discussion.
Carrick: A quarter of a degree C, net, in a hundred years is not “evidence”, and could be entirely due to measurement error. All the rest is supposition.
Robert108, the fact that mathematical theory gets used in economic modeling is not fantasy, it’s practical reality: Finance companies hire mathematicians and physicists to perform exactly the sort of optimization problems we are talking about here, and they do so because it confers an economic advantage for them. See computational finance for more on this.
So when you say (I assume this was misspoken) Since economics is the study of human behavior, a hypothetical mathematical model is not applicable you are clearly in error.
Whistler, hopefully we can both sign on to the fact that the classical greenhouse gas effect is real, and important for maintaining heat on the Earth (I forget the exact number, but it raises the temperature by something like 50°C over what it would be without it), and further that CO2 plays an important role in that (perhaps as much as 8% of the total effect).
I would also suggest that we would agree that we don’t fully understand all of the climate feedbacks in the system, and that it has been the tendency of the global warming advocates to only consider those feedback mechanisms which yield a net positive gain to temperature.
I also think we both agree that the CO2 effect (whatever it is) is probably smaller than the global warming advocates claim, and that for most of the 20th century natural fluctuations have dominated global climate change. So while global climate change is real, most of that is not associated with human activity, at least to this point.
Further we would agree, I believe, that most of the hoopla associated with global warming is a tactic used by socialists and other anti-industrial types who are using this as a pretext for extending the control of the central government over normal citizens, or for undermining our free market system. That is why they find true free-market based solutions so frightening, especially if they come from Exxon-Mobile or any other “evil corporation”.
I think our main point of divergence is that I am simply saying that assuming there are no negative feedback mechanisms at play, that what we know about the physics of greenhouse gases suggests that we can realistically reach the level of CO2 concentration needed to significantly modify the Earth’s climate. And by significantly, I mean significant on a human-impact scale, not just on “can we measure it” scale.
While it may be true that there are negative feedback mechanism (e.g., Roy Spencer’s Iris Effect) that moderate climate, I have to regard such mechanisms with the same degree of skepticism that I hold e..g the water vapor-CO2 positive feedback mechanism.
Anyway that’s my take on it. Interesting discussion. Also interested in your feedback on my thoughts here.
Run a business that enjoys long term success without short term profit(in the private sector), and then you will see who is “in error”. Your math models are only for aggregate functions, but for a business to succeed, the real world requires short term success to have long term success. Of course, since govt dominates any market it enters, it simply confiscates what it needs, and calls that long term success. It isn’t.
BTW, water vapor is responsible for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect.
Robert108, You can have short term losses, if you plan for them, in order to have long term success. Most publicly owned companies have to satisfy their stockholders, which reduces the opportunity for long term vision. Lose money three years in a row, regardless what happens in five years, and see what happens to the CEO.
Perhaps you can expand on what you (personally that is) mean by an “aggregate function” and what the implications are for that in the question of the optimization of nonlinear systems with feedback. I’m totally unclear where you are going with this (aggregate functions as I know them have nothing to say about this one way or the other).
Water vapor accounts for 70-80 of the total classic greenhouse effect . That’s not the “vast majority”. CO2, methane, CO3, NO and other trace gases account for roughly 20%.
If only humans and other mammals could be made to stop emitting so much of it!
Damn those upper life forms.
Carrick: In my book, 80% is a “vast majority”.
Mathematical economic analysis is based on things that have already happened, and real world economics is about what is going on right now. I’m sure you can devise a very limited scenario where one can claim long term success without short term success, but it would be a very special case, and not relevant to real world economics, which is what I have been saying all along.
I don’t even understand the relevance of your argument to our economy, unless it’s some kind of justification for govt interference in the market, as an excuse for more socialism. As I said before, the govt can claim long term “success” without short term success, but it’s only because the govt dominates every market it enters, and ends up determining the parameters and eliminating competition. Besides, govt can always confiscate the money it needs to keep operating, and can also keep its own books, so real world comparison is nonsensical. The govt doesn’t operate by the rules of the market.
TW: Here’s the deal: If it’s getting warmer, it’s global warming; if it’s getting cooler, it’s global warming, but something is “masking” it.