Manacker,
So the net “social cost” of reducing carbon must be included in any analysis.
A new post of about a week ago may have some useful analogies:
“Net subsidiy analysis is a better way to compare government energy policy”
http://www.masterresource.org/2013/11/net-subsidy-analysis-a-better-way-to-compare-government-energy-policy/
That’s ridiculous. Rigged the unemployment numbers? I mean I can kind of understand the whole anti-Christ thing, and the Muslim thing, and the not a citizen thing, but saying that the Obama administration rigged the UE numbers requires a very high bar of proo…
Oh.
Wait..
The numbers, according to a reliable source, were manipulated.
Oh. “A reliable source.”
I didn’t realize that you had such rock solid proof.
Nevermind.
The social cost of carbon numbers are going to be about as reliable as sociology – which is to say, not reliable at all.
sorry – mis-nested:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/21/social-cost-of-carbon/#comment-416300
The “other reasons” are not sufficient without cheap energy to effect progress to any great extent. Cheap energy is necessary for progress.
Yep, just like all the other “mistakes” made by Obama and his minions have been “due to a reliable source.” Obama can’t do anything right, especially when it comes to telling the truth and playing an honest game. He is Alinsky 2.0.
Sen. Rand Paul incorrectly claimed “you will go to jail” if you don’t buy health insurance and refuse to pay the tax penalty. The law specifically states that those who do not pay the penalty “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution.”
Still having trouble finding the “audio” label Biggs. Perhaps you could clarify.
Greg
” I’ve seen him post some pretty outrageous comments here, totally unprovoked”
That is a matter of how much we are typically soaking up non-verbal communication and the normal power of societal norms. Writing and reading is rather dehumanizing, in he truest sense.
People type things they would never say face-to-face, they miss cue’s that they would get from face reading and posture.
Oh, wait. Stop the press. It does matter now we need to explain the cooling (sorry ‘hiatus’) but still didn’t cause the warming, that was human caused. 97% of climate scientists are agreed,
Greg, this is a better illustration of what I mean by the impact of baseline and seasonal cycle removal choices.
Since the Antarctic data started in the late 50s the inclusion has cause some issues in the SH temperature series due to the short baseline period. By using the full ERSST SH data period for a baseline and removing the full seasonal cycle instead of the transition period 1951-1980 you get a different look. I am not saying it is right, just that the variance of the SH don’t look right.
Now if you have all the daily data that would be a different story, but with the monthly data?
manacker, several sources have said we are already well past a half way to the trillion tonnes that some propose as a carbon limit. For example
http://trillionthtonne.org/
has a counter that currently stands at 575 Gt C, but is not just emissions. This is over 2000 Gt CO2.
When evaluating costs/benefits tonnes of CO2 are more commonly used when looking at dollar values.
thanks Jim.
a lot people seem to have trouble seeing how oceans can outgas and absorb at the same time. The two effects are superimposed and can be modelled separately.
Biosphere will be acting as neg f/b also a Max says.
It is obvious that the spike in 1998 isn’t noise, it is a damned signal. Smoothing it just makes it wider and squatter.
Why destroy information?
Love to see a cardiologist smooth an EEG.
OK, other things call.
don’t expect such close input from now on.
Thanks for a generally agreeable and productive thread.
EEEECK!
======
A model. This one useful.
=====
Using your numbers, 35 trillion dollars divided by 380 Gt C is $92/tonne. 35000 gigadollars over 380 gigatonnes. 35000/380=92.
blueice2hotsea | November 22, 2013 at 7:44 pm |
Yes, you have it.
Though it appears the reason for selecting as prime a duo (or triple) has been missed.
The problem with trendology when you don’t know if there is an underlying periodic pattern is to avoid accidentally producing one. For example, if you chose 12 and 48, for some reason, on a 5-year (60 months = 12 + 48) moving average, you can pretty much bet you will on enough data create a false oscillation.
This overlay is visible in http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:96/mean:24/mean:12 for example; note the artificially constructed regular sawtooth pattern on sections of the curve.
So a difference of 2 in 191 is, indeed, significant.