What do you believe has been adequately demonstrated in climate change science?

[Dinner]

i) A carbon tax and a cap-and-trade system will both find the same equilibrium no matter how permits are initially distributed (Coase theorem) and both have the same initial deadweight costs

One will probably take longer then the other to reach a state of equilibrium so it is still worth while to study the options closely. Also one is applied to everything (theoretically) while the other is more open to political manipulation and thus is likely to be less effective (or take longer to reach equilibrium if you prefer that terminology). In my mind there are simply more factors politicians can **** with in cap & trade (the size of the cap, the value of off sets) so my inclination is to go with the simpler solution of taxing all carbon and letting god sort them out.

ii) The revenue from a carbon tax and a fully auctioned cap-and-trade system can be used to reduce other, more destructive taxes, and this is by far the most efficient way to reduce emissions (particularly compared to legislating/regulating/subsidizing technologies or industry-specific emissions levels)

It won't. It never does. Politicians see money, politicians spend money. Theoretically all that TARP money banks are repaying to avoid the penalties should be used to pay off the debt incurred getting the money to finance the TARP to begin with but it won't. It will be spent. We all know this.

[Dinner]

Also, I finished my Dewar's (given to us by a clueless but well-meaning houseguest who knew that we "like scotch")

I haven't had a drink in two weeks. I'm aiming to go three months just because.

[HalfLotus]

I'm down with 1 & 2, the rest not so much. I think there's a high likelihood that our current understanding of global climate is not entirely accurate, and computer models that rely on proxy data and significant data adjustments seem shaky at best.

The issue seems to be so highly politicized that it's affecting certain scientists and institutions a great deal, most especially the UN and the IPCC.

[Dinner]

By "significant data adjustment" do you mean the one (as in solitary) outlaying data point in continuous 13 year sequence? The one outlayer which, according to even the people who made the measurement, was done improperly? It doesn't seem to take much for the wing nuts to label something "climate gate"; I mean cherry picking a just three emails out of tens of thousands and still not even making a convincing argument sounds pretty desperate to me.

[HalfLotus]

The data is adjusted to a fairly large extent. Whether it is appropriate or not is debatable, but to say that only a single data point has been adjusted is not accurate.

And I guess half of Americans are wing nuts, probably an understatement, but doesn't say much for your "fringe" accusations.

And there is quite a bit more than the 3 compromising emails if you can manage to dig a little deeper than mainstream media soundbites.

[Robert]

1) CO2 causes a greenhouse effect (duh)
Well, CO2 is one of the least important greenhouse effect creators.
But indeed, CO2 also causes a greenhouse effect.

2) Human beings are currently altering the CO2 balance of the atmosphere significantly

We are altering the ammount of CO2.
If this also alters the balance significantly... I'm not sure about that.
Define significantly first.

3) This push will cause significant rises in global mean temperature (1-5C) over the next century or so

I don't buy that. CO2 is only one of the greenhouse effect causes, and not even the most important one. And humanity is not the only one that has an effect on CO2 or other greenhouse gasses.
Not to mention that the greenhouse effect is also dependant on the sun.
There are way too much things we can't be sure about.


4) This will cause significant increases in global mean sea levels (30-200cm)
Why?

5) This will flood a number of currently low-lying areas

low-lying areas have been flooded over and over again in the past. It will happen in the future as well. I'm not sure if this'll be b/c of the greenhouse effect.
As far as Ik now the south pole is not melding, so there's no problem.

[MikeH]

I agree with everything in the OP

And on rainfall.

I think it's been proven that rainfall patterns in local areas can be significantly changed, and drought conditions created as a consequence of deforestation or major changes in land use, where areas have been conversed to mass agriculture with changes in water use for irrigation or where water has been directed to cities for human use. This is a separate issue to climate change caused by atmospheric CO2, or other greenhouse gasses. It is more man made local climate change rather than global, and it is tied to industrial development. I think there is reasonable evidence (if not conclusively proven) that the number of these local changes are already contributing to increasing the number of extreme weather events across the globe. One problem is not enough historical data, reliable cyclone monitoring really only started in 1970. Certainly extreme weather events are increasing, it's just what the exact cause/causes are that is in doubt.

I will try and find some links to met office hadley centre research later to back that up.

[Kuciwalker]

I feel 1+2 have been proven and 3-5 are highly plausible but unproven, because the climate is a sufficiently complex system that extrapolation is not very certain.

[MOBIUS]

1) Duh indeed, although we’re running the risk of entering the realm where positive feedbacks kick in. Already the permafrost around the world is beginning to melt, giving off ever increasing quantities of methane, which is 20 times more potent!
4) At least! The sea level rise figures are constantly being adjusted upwards. It has to be noted that sea level rise during the 20th Century was approximately 20cm. Also the effects of isostasy have to be taken into account – for example, in the UK we have the curious situation where in Scotland the land is rising, whilst in southern England it is sinking.
5) Already happening across the world!

a) Extreme weather events (floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc.) are already killing thousands of people globally each year and this is the tip of the iceberg. Also imagine the socio-economic effects of mass displacement, competition for dwindling resources (water, fish stocks, viable land for farming, peak oil, raw materials etc.) – riots will be triggered (witness the food riots of last year), wars will be fought…
b) This is a no brainer – or at least was. I think we may have already passed a point where it would have been relatively affordable to do something about it. Mitigating stuff from a) above is going to be hugely costly and spiral ever upwards. How much has it cost so far dealing with New Orleans?
c) They already are! Too much or too little rain for an area is a significant negative effect. I’ve seen first hand the ongoing droughts affecting Australia – droughts and their severity are on the increase wherever there is a susceptibility to them. The converse is also true of floods. In the UK again, 2 out of the last 3 years have seen extreme localised flooding events – costly ones too (see b)).

As for i) and ii), I am fairly ambivalent about their potentials for success, with the potential to give rich countries carte blanche to continue their polluting ways for a small premium. However something does need to be done, the UK govt is taking the wrong approach by using climate change as an opportunity to fleece people left and right for additional taxes. There should be positive incentives as well to actually stimulate the creation of green jobs – instead of setting the population against the whole concept.

iii) Education on climate change on the positive effects. Clearly lacking here in the UK as the prevailing opinion is the fact that all the measures required are actually a BAD THING that are going to adversely affect people's standard of living. I’ve taken a series of steps to reduce my carbon footprint quite drastically around the house and the result of this small amount of effort (I am a lazy person!) is the saving of hundreds of pounds! Our government has us believing this is going to COST MONEY, when in actual fact most of the things in your power to change should actually be saving you money! My car died in August and, as an experiment I have yet to replace it. I guess I am lucky as I live in the middle of town and work is only a ten minute bike ride away – however I have found that I have almost completely not missed having a car at all! When I do need one, I hire one – which I have only done twice so far. I figure again I have already saved hundreds of pounds. I have also lost about half a stone and am much fitter! People need to be engaged via the positive benefits – not beaten with the evil tax stick!

iv) A virtual declaration of ‘war’ on the climate (America should be good at this: ‘war on drugs’, ‘war on terror’ etc.). In the UK for example, the entire population had to conserve energy and resources during WWII because of Hitler’s (crap, have I Godwinised this thread!?) U-Boat blockade. Our population was exhorted to ‘Dig for Victory’ with virtually every available piece of land being used to grow food. Meat was rationed, public transport encouraged, things were mended etc. Of course, Nazi Germany was a clear existential threat, as opposed to climate change where even now 40% of UK citizens aren’t convinced. A good bit of martial law helped as well. Currently I believe we are in the ‘phoney war’ stage, a bit like before Germany unleashed her armies and overran France in 1940… We can start small on this one...

[Kuciwalker]

Oh, and one thing I suspect is absolute bunk (or at least, is completely unproven) is the "global warming is causing every weather catastrophe that happens" meme.

[MOBIUS]

I have zero problem with a carbon tax so long as industrial emissions in China, etc are treated the same as those in Ontario, etc; petroleum producers in Saudi, Venezuala, Nigeria, Russia, etc are treated the same as those in Alberta; farms in Argentina, the Ukraine, Kansas, and France face the same carbon costs as those in Saskatchewan; and forestry in Sweden and Russia faces the same taxes as in British Columbia.

China has done more unilaterally to combat climate change than any other country in the world – namely the One-child policy enacted in 1979 (not to mention its efforts at population control since the ‘50’s). Since then it estimates that it has 300-400 million fewer people in 2008 than without the policy – basically the population of the USA!

The average Chinese person is responsible for less than a third of greenhouse emissions compared to an American, or a Canadian.

China’s proposals for cutting CO2 by 2050 is more than twice that of the USA (40% to 17% IIRC).

Any more excuses for sitting on your arse and continuing to pollute the world as you see fit while having the cheek to blame others?

[MOBIUS]

Oh, and one thing I suspect is absolute bunk (or at least, is completely unproven) is the "global warming is causing every weather catastrophe that happens" meme.

Please point to one person on Poly that has said that...

[Theben]

Not to mention that the greenhouse effect is also dependant on the sun.

FTW

[MOBIUS]

Phenomena such as Milakovitch cycles etc are routinely factored in to climate change models.

What is your point?

[Theben]

Welshmen