IPCC Report

[ThisDinosaur]

Look a little closer, and you will see the same mechanics at work in NASA.

How so?

I think NASA's accomplishments are a good example of the kind of thing a market solution cant produce. If you're familiar with Chompsky's view of the "Pentagon System," he thinks capitalism gets too much credit for developments that originate with government funded R and D.

[Riggerjack]

How so?

I have no NASA axe to grind. But read some first person accounts of the lunar missions.(the ones published in the '80's, from engineers who no longer worked under the direction of NASA.) NASA's claim to fame is space, but their real accomplishment was PR. And when PR didn't work anymore, NASA lost its way, which doesn't make sense if one thinks NASA is about space.

The same pattern can be seen in the FBI. They started as heroic G-men, and eventually, when the PR ran thin, they were exposed as cops with office skills, observing, rather than acting.

I don't differentiate between Government and Government contractors, so I have no opinion about private vs government development of tech. Or rather, no opinion on a distinction without a difference.

Popular support, coupled to government regulation, yields predictable results. It looks like:
Obamacare (this isn't a critique of national healthcare, but of how Congress can "improve" a bad situation, how many providers are left in your state?)

Reconstruction

League of Nations

The New Deal (because when the soup lines are around the block, we should be destroying agricultural commodities and prosecuting farmers for growing grain rather than buy it. )

Banking regulations clearly have that problem solved.

Flood insurance

net neutrality.

Are we really looking to add the future of humanity to such a foolproof system, or is that just what we do when we decide the problems can be dumped on people we don't care about? Because that seems to be what happens.

All the dancing around about needing a carbon tax, somehow doesn't touch on the affect on trade, and who that screws over (hint, it's not Walmart shoppers, and really, not on the North American Continent.)

[BRUTE]

I think NASA's accomplishments are a good example of the kind of thing a market solution cant produce.

can't or doesn't? just because it's been done doesn't mean it was a good idea.

[ThisDinosaur]

But read some first person accounts of the lunar missions.(the ones published in the '80's, from engineers who no longer worked under the direction of NASA.)

Which ones? Im sure you can find as many disgruntled former government employees as you can in private industry.

NASA was formed primarily to win a propaganda war against the Soviets. It was recognized early that the US was so far behind in the space race that our only hope was to reframe the whole thing to our advantage. The manned moon landing goal was chosen precisely because it was technically feasible, but ONLY if both the US and USSR started from scratch.

When US manned spaceflight "lost its way" as you say, is when they chose a *low cost* reusable Shuttle as its next goal. Of the things Government does better than Private Industry, making things low cost is definitely not one of them.

The result of this massive PR stunt includes satellite and information technology we all benefit from and otherwise wouldn't have had.

can't or doesn't? just because it's been done doesn't mean it was a good idea.

So brute doesnt like GPS. Fine, what about airlines and computers? Commercial jets are all built by military contractors with manufacturing techniques perfected on long range bombers. The internet and the transistors it runs on were all developed by federal funding followed by government procurement.


I'm not arguing that the Paris agreement or carbon taxes are a good idea. But other government actions could conceivably work. For example: stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies and redirect those funds to renewable energy infrastructure projects. Some of the technologies funded will be wasteful dead ends (Wind Power), while others could provide us energy independence without the need to keep Droneing brown people who happen to live near petroleum deposits.

[Riggerjack]

But other government actions could conceivably work. For example: stop subsidizing fossil fuel companies and redirect those funds to renewable energy infrastructure projects. Some of the technologies funded will be wasteful dead ends (Wind Power), while others could provide us energy independence without the need to keep Droneing brown people who happen to live near petroleum deposits.

This. This is the problem with G's.

It's not that any of that is outside the capability of government. Or just not possible. It's just not going to happen. Every incentive of every actor in the chain of actions necessary for it to happen is aligned against it happening. If it happens, it will be because something outside business as usual forced it to happen, in a way urgent enough to overcome all that systematic resistance.

But G's are trained to think of government as their buddy. Their big, friendly Mastodon. And since they often produce or agree with the studies and minor adjustments used to steer the beast, they tend to think the beast is under their control. See how they ride it, and it goes where directed?

But the beast is too big and insensitive to control. It can be guided more or less effectively. But none of the inputs lead to predictable outputs. It's guiding, not steering, and none of the "guides" is working with or coordinating their efforts with other guides. Pretense of control is as silly as pretending to control economies. It's just stories people tell themselves so they can sleep at night.

The Mastodon has the strength to lift logs and rip trees out of the ground. So when looking at building something, like a log cabin, it's natural to see the trees, the Mastodon, and think we should use the Mastodon to clear the land and lift the logs to build the cabin. After all, each task individually is within the capability of the Mastodon.

But we have had this Mastodon for a while now. And when we look at projects that it has been used for, they look nothing like a cabin. Some of them were woods, and now are bare earth and piles of logs, but mostly, they look like trampled trees that used to be woods. None look like cabins. Some we're cabin-like, but they were built around the Mastodon, and didn't make it through the day the Mastodon changed it's mind.

I understand the appeal of using a strong lever one thinks one controls. I just haven't seen that example where using a Mastodon for anything but destruction results in something I would consider worth the cost.

And cost actually matters here. Who pays. How much. When. Those are factors that need to be balanced to get through this century without an active, and destructive, massive reduction in human population. Those are the stakes, billions of lives and deaths. Are we really going to entrust that to the same people who can't pay for SS, balance a budget, or even stop bickering about who uses which bathroom?

[jacob]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyZs6LdQ1cQ

Scientist discussing the report relative to the previous ARs.

Important points:

• Sliding baseline for the reported temperature (moving the goal posts ).
• Clathrates (methane) are back.
• Failure of the carbon sink was brought up.

This provides some idea of what's scientifically known but didn't make it into this report because of the government review process or because it's a new/added concern that will wait for wide dissemination until AR6 in 2021.

[Riggerjack]

Yes, please read Jacob's link.

I am probably just being overly disagreeable, again.

I am advocating a solution that hasn't happened, and I'm describing poorly. Rather than trying to convince anyone with badly described solutions, I should demonstrate.

That's going to take a while.

[ThisDinosaur]

@RJ
The examples I provided are instances of the Mastodon following commands. Others include environmental regulations and food+drug safety inspections.

Policy proposals should be considered on a case by case basis. The libertarian heuristic that increasing government responsibility ALWAYS results in worse outcomes is a flawed one.

Governments, like corporations, small businesses, and voluntary associations, are just collections of individuals. Those individuals can be expected to wield whatever power they have for their own interests and values. And sometimes the invisible hand is picking your pocket.

[ThisDinosaur]

@jacob
Why does Beckwith prefer using the 1750 baseline over the 1850? That's right in the middle of an abnormally cool period.

Also, what carbon capture and solar radiation management approaches is he advocating? Do you have an opinion on them?

@RJ
Which action are you advocating? If you are referring to individual adaptation, I think that's obviously preferable. That doesnt mean government action is never effective under any circumstances.

[jacob]

@TD - Because the 1750 line the previous metric/baseline used. When we talk of a 1.5 increase, we obviously have to decide on a baseline because it's +1.5 degree relative to some other temperature. If we change the baseline by +0.3 ... and we say we're at +1, then that's really +1.3C relative to the baseline we've previously been talking about.

It is actually pretty hard to arrive at a well-defined temperature because of the annual/decadal volatility. It is the same problem that investors have when trying to decide a "true" value. What is the real price sans fluctuations. In the new IPCC report, one takes a 30 year average and then assigns that temperature to the center-year. E.g. to calculate the real temperature in 2000, you would take the average of the 1985-2015 range. If you want the temperature in 2015, you'd take the 2005+10 years times the slope of a first order regression. The first order is added since temps are obviously increasing. The slope is currently 0.02C/year. Four years ago, the slope was 0.017C/year.

He is not talking about any one method in particular. The point is that currently in the atmosphere, we have 410ppm CO2. Then we have about 80ppm CO2e worth of methane, nitrous oxide, black carbon, CFC gasses, etc. and then another -80 (<- negative) CO2e of aerosols (sulfites, smog) that provide a cooling factor to cancel out those other GHGs (that's an accidental match). These are ALL factors that must be considered. If we just clean up the air by switching to alternative energy sources, we lose the cooling factor and the world will be begin heating really fast(*). Therefore, these must somehow be replaced (injecting them into the stratosphere where they don't cause harm like acid rain) all while reducing the positive ones. We can't just do one thing.

(*) I suppose an analogy might be in terms of being on drug A while taking drug B to clear up side-effects of drug A with drug B having severe withdrawal effects. Coming off drug A would thus require drug C to deal with the effects of tapering off drug B. Hence a bar stool strategy is required.

[TheWanderingScholar]

@jacob:
Would something like this be useful?
Stratospheric Solar Engineering without ozone loss as possible tactic to reduce heating?

The main issues is the delivery method and secondary effects coming from the Stratospheric engineering on the biolog and toposhere.

[BRUTE]

So brute doesnt like GPS. Fine, what about airlines and computers? Commercial jets are all built by military contractors with manufacturing techniques perfected on long range bombers. The internet and the transistors it runs on were all developed by federal funding followed by government procurement.

this economic fallacy is as old as the french revolution. http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

brute enjoys GPS, computers, and airlines. but what he would enjoy more would be the even better things that would've been invented instead, if the money hadn't been squandered by the government.

[BRUTE]

Policy proposals should be considered on a case by case basis. The libertarian heuristic that increasing government responsibility ALWAYS results in worse outcomes is a flawed one.

Governments, like corporations, small businesses, and voluntary associations, are just collections of individuals. Those individuals can be expected to wield whatever power they have for their own interests and values. And sometimes the invisible hand is picking your pocket.

brute agrees with the case by case basis, but finds the libertarian heuristic a very good one. government programs are, by default, zero-sum and backed by force, whereas market transactions are positive-sum and voluntary. brute has an extremely high bar for any such activity. it's similar to sacrificing virgins - sure, case by case basis, but there better be no other option, and it better be worth doing. would ThisDinosaur agree to sacrificing virgins to get GPS? brute would probably not.

[jacob]

@TWS - I don't know about this particular method. Even if sulfates deplete ozone, sulfates are a known quantity (they come out of volcanoes).

Technologically speaking injecting stratospheric aerosols is easy and relatively cheap(*). Almost all countries in the world are capable of doing it. Some NGOs could too.

(*) But before we get too excited: This does not solve the ocean acid problem.

The hard part is deciding on a long-term strategy because the process can't be applied randomly or in fits and starts. IOW, you need all the important players to agree (enough so that wars aren't started) to start and then continue the process for many decades. Once the world starts, it's committed. Kinda like an opioid addict. Yet this is an easier political problem than cutting down emissions.

[TheWanderingScholar]

@jacob:
Interesting. I need to find another article about possible geoengineering solutions to oceanic acifidication, at least counter acting it locally.

[7Wannabe5]

@BRUTE:

An understanding and appreciation of the world's hydrological cycle and the critical role of energy in it is perhaps one of the most fundamental things we can learn about how the Earth, and hence our economy, operates. Curiously this process is not considered part of most economics even though it is probably the most important step in the world economy, the purifying of water and the lifting of it to the land and to the mountains that supply most of the world with its water for agriculture, for all economic activity, and for life itself. It is not considered by conventional economics because it is free; that is, it does not enter into markets.

or

“I'm too much old-timer to be rude to a woman no matter what - they have so much of what we have none of.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

[Riggerjack]

The first order is added since temps are obviously increasing. The slope is currently 0.02C/year. Four years ago, the slope was 0.017C/year.

@ Jacob,

I was thinking about this last night. There is a definite communication problem going on here. The terms are accurate, but not intuitive. The average person reading this is comparing yesterday's temperature, and today's, and seeing a difference of many degrees, and no significant change.

What we need, is a more visceral measurement. Something that people can grasp in mental pictures. We are 8 pages into this thread, let's take the gloves off.

It's time to go nuclear!

By that I mean to raise the temperature by 0.017 degrees, how much energy is that? As in, how often are we adding a Hiroshima bomb size addition of nuclear radiation to our planet? Because that is what we are doing. Orbiting a nuclear fireball, and adding GHG to our radiation shield to capture more of that radiation, and keep it for ourselves as heat.

On that scale, how does this look? A nuke per year? Week? Hour? Second? Many per second?

BTW, https://www.jclahr.com/alaska/aeic/magnitude/energy.txt is the same idea, applied to earthquakes, already broken down into scientific notation. That might make it easier.

[jacob]

You're not the first one with that idea: http://4hiroshimas.com/

It's about 4 Hiroshima bombs per second but I don't think that's more relatable?!

My favorite metaphor is to compare planetary heating to the human body having a fever. This works (for me) because the scales are very close to comparable between the complex homeostasis of the human body and the complex homeostatis of the geoplanetary systems including the consequences.

Normal human body temperature is is 37C. (Normal Holocene temperature is 15C)
Raising it by 1C => Still functional, slight discomfort (this line was crossed in 2017)
Raising it by 2C => Sick, quite uncomfortable, bed rest recommend
Raising it by 3C => Seriously sick, bed rest required, doctor conferred
Raising it by 4C => Medical emergency
Raising it by 5C => Dead

[7Wannabe5]

I wonder what effect stratospheric solar engineering would have on plant metabolism and growth?

Maybe it would be easier to ban power mowers and make suburbanites bury their grass clippings?-(JK-obviously much more unpossible and pain-inducing.) Funny thing is that a big hot compost pile is not unlike an off-season draft horse. Prior to the popularization of the electric trolley, manure piled up 5 feet deep in some city streets. Out of sight is out of mind.

Anyways, the problem with "just" thinking about carbon footprint is that you also have to count trees (AKA "carbon sinks") and solar acreage. For instance, according to one conservative estimate, emissions per acre in the US is about twice that of Bangladesh with a population density of 3%. So, one way to achieve recommended emissions level in the US would be to reduce population by 50% while maintaining same lifestyle and borders. Obviously, booting out all the illegal and semi-illegal and might-be-made illegal immigrants AND saddling large percentage of young fertile females with overwhelming debt might be the way to go.

Trees are less efficient than grasses at metabolizing CO2, but mature trees are more efficient in maintenance mode than young trees in growth mode, so well-managed wood-lot combined with biochar production from agricultural waste might be towards ideal. Human metabolism alone generates about 1 kg of CO2 and every $1 spent in the market is equivalent to about a coffee cup worth of petroleum of energy which also equals roughly 1 kg of emissions, so , for instance, Jacob only produces about 8 metric tons of emissions compared to average of 20 metric tons per American if you don't include his share of public spending (which seems appropriate since he counts taxes as personal spending) and the net results of his stewardship of his personal solar acreage and/or if he burns scrap wood he finds on the curb, etc.

My point being that is really isn't that difficult to calculate your own release and/or sink and/or to even go negative.

[jacob]

I wonder what effect stratospheric solar engineering would have on plant metabolism and growth?

Not as much as tropospheric "solar engineering" (aka smog). In principle sulfates could be emitted in the troposphere and it would work just as well. This is what humans do when they drive, rely on coal-fired power, and burn sour (non-sweet) oil. The side-effect is acid rain which kills trees et al(*) which does increase the atmosphere's ability to reduce (oxygen) and also decreases the functionality of the carbon cycle as a sink. Hence, the aim of putting the sulfate up in the stratosphere where it does less direct harm.

(*) Hence legislation like the clean air act of 1970

Cleaning up the troposphere had the unfortunate side-effect of also increasing the rate of warming after 1970 since we were no longer unintentionally engineering (<- oxymoron?) a negative radiation forcing factor.