An honest conversation on Global Warming
By moderich Posted in Archived — Comments (99) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
A rather "simple" and straightforward question resulted in the following email correspondence between myself and U. Penn Professor Bob Giegengack in early February 2008.
It seems to me much of this global-warming debate hinges on the likelihood that nature is solely responsible for CO2 levels doubling and the ratio of oceanic carbon isotopes (12/13/14) changing within a 150 to 200 year interval. Given the ice core data, the present change is singluarly anomalous in its brevity, would you agree? If so, man-made CO2 is a convenient explanation. Is there a solar process (or another) that is correspondingly anomalous relative to the ice core data?
(Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the
previous 11,000 years)R Hampton
I think you're quite right about the anomalous nature of the CO2 signal in the last 200 years. The present concentration is unprecedented in the 800,000-year record in the ice cores, although many lines of evidence show that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been higher, indeed much higher (~15 times higher), in the past, at times when global temperatures were not much different from those of today. Most notable in that record is the reconstruction of CO2 concentrations similar to those of today during the last major glaciation in Carboniferous time (~320 million years ago), and the reconstruction of atmospheric CO2 levels 12 times higher than those of today during the Ordovician glacial period, ~550 million years ago. Go figure.
Simply from those observations, one might be justified in concluding that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is certainly not the only, and maybe not the primary, determinant of climate.
The time scales, however, confound such simple conclusions. While the time resolution of the Antarctic temperature history is of the order of decades, the bubbles of air trapped in the Antarctic ice are samples of air that circulated freely through the accumulating snow pack on top of the ice sheet for at least a century before they were trapped in the ice as it was compressed under the weight of superjacent snowfall. The temperature scale has the resolution of decades, while the CO2 record has the resolution of centuries. Thus, major excursions of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, if they were brief, would not be expressed in the CO2 curve. The Greenland ice sheet traps atmospheric bubbles in a few years of compression, because the air over the Greenland ice sheet is so much warmer, but the Greenland ice is also contaminated with atmospheric dust, much of which is CaCO3, so the air in the bubbles reacts with dissolved carbonate species in the ice and the CO2 values are not representative of atmospheric chemistry.
The time resolution is so poor for reconstruction of climates of the remote past that we can't hope to resolve even the major 100,000-year climatic cycle that today controls the advance and retreat of continental glaciers. The statistical "error bars" for measured ages of events before about 10 million years ago span a period of time longer than a single glacial/interglacial cycle.
Certainly the most parsimonious interpretation of the contemporary high level of atmospheric CO2 is that it is the direct consequence of anthropogenic industrial activity. However, only about half of the CO2 delivered to the atmospheric each year by human activity remains in the atmosphere. The rest "sinks" into various Earth-surface reservoirs (the ocean, terrestrial soils, permafrost,the biosphere, etc.) as a consequence of processes we do not yet fully understand. We need to know more about the carbon cycle.
Predictions about the direct effect of the contemporary CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are based on elaborate computer models that cover such a wide range of possible outcomes that it is hard to take them seriously. Those models can only be as good as the understanding of atmospheric physics by the modeler, and we all know that our understanding of those processes is weak. The discussion of the future of climate as a consequence of projected CO2 levels lies much more in the realm of politics and economics than in the realm of physical science.
Those of us who work with computer models of physical processes acquire a healthy contempt for their utility. How many of us base our retirement strategies on the econometric models that theoretical economists manipulate? (one famous Wharton professor has predicted 12 of the last 3 recessions...). What gives me pause in comparing those 2 kinds of models is the realization that the econometric models are far richer in data, maybe orders of magnitude richer, than the climate models, and they still aren't very useful.
If CO2 were the only, or even the primary, determinant of climate we should be seeing much higher contemporary temperatures than we observe. The present CO2 concentration is double that of the last glacial maximum, and 30% higher than the pre-industrial value. Maybe the thermal signal has been absorbed by the oceans, and will become apparent only on the time scale of thermohaline (deep) circulation of ocean water, ~1500 years.
But we're in luck!! the industrial-development plans of the 2.4 billion people in China and India will soon pour so much additional CO2 into the atmosphere that its role might become clearer in a century or so.
The role of solar variability has been curiously absent from this debate, aside from the assertions of a few people who are almost universally ignored. If changes in solar output (apart from the variation in receipt of solar radiation at the Earth's surface, which depends on slight variations in orbital geometry, as worked out in such elegant detail by Milankovic early in the 20th century) are important forcing factors, we should see a solar-variability curve superimposed on the Milankovic curve, both in the ice cores and the deep-sea cores, and we don't. The Milankovic variation predominates, and can even be seen in rocks of Triassic age. (However, Gary Hughes and I have published a description of our discovery of what appear to be sunspot cycles in clay layers deposited in a glacial lake in what is now Ontario 2 BILLION years ago!)
To me, the major uncertainties in the history of climate are at the intermediate time scales. We see a close correlation between Milankovic cycles and the major climate signal - the comings and goings of continental glaciers on a 100,000-year cycle and the harmonic 41,000-year and 22,000-year cycles embedded in that signal - and we think we can predict the weather on the scale of weeks. We have not done well with the scales of years, decades, centuries, or millennia. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the great thermal inertia of the global ocean and the slow overturn of the thermohaline circulation (the so-called "Great Conveyor Belt") play a major role in the response of Earth's climate to solar forcing, and we don't understand the ocean-circulation system very well.
Since the publication of the data from the Antarctic ice cores, beginning in 1987, I have been impressed by the extent to which carbon has been moved around among Earth-surface reservoirs, even on a very short time scale. Prior to those data, we did not know how to interpret the rising CO2 concentrations measured in the atmosphere since 1958 (the Keeling curve). Now we know that the contemporary CO2 concentration is very likely higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, and that, for much of Earth history, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been higher, for much of the time much higher, than at any time in the last 800,000 years. From the perspective of the Earth historian, the present climate is unusual not because it is so hot, but because it is so cold. The percentage of Earth history that has been characterized by polar ice caps is of the order of 5-10%; for the rest of Earth history, as far as we know, the poles have been ice free, sea level has been at least 100m higher, and circulation of solar energy to the poles via oceanic circulation has been more efficient than it is now. In the last few million years, we have come closer to freezing the world ocean than at any time in the last 300 million years!
Of course, those who predict the demise of human civilization in the looming global-warming catastrophe express little interest in the time frame that preoccupies me. I think that an understanding of the history of climate will inform our understanding of the processes that control climate change, but I acknowledge that our recent activity may have introduced into the climate system perturbations that may not be fully assimilated by the processes that have controlled carbon exchange near the Earth's surface heretofore.
I deplore the mean-spirited exchange that now passes for debate about the history and future of climate. That spirit has hijacked any substantive discussion of the science, which is clearly not fully resolved (Al Gore's statement that "the science is in" is a religious, not a scientific statement). And I remain convinced that climate change, in its capacity to visit inconvenience or serious harm on humanity, does not rise to the top 10 among the adverse impacts that humanity has imposed on the environment (see my list of the top 10, attached). And it is clear to me that, even if the worst doomsday scenarios are accurate predictions of our future, nothing we are doing, or even contemplating doing, can have any effect on the problem as it is described.
I'm sorry if I have gone on beyond what you were asking. But your question is a good one, probably the major question we have to try to resolve.
Bob Giegengack
I must tell you that I'm astonished that you replied to this lay-person's question. But I can't begin to express my appreciation for so thoughtful a response. That something as simple as the play of wind-driven snow can blur the measure of time is both logically obvious (in hindsight) and wonderfully insightful.
As you alluded to, the debate makes scientific discussion difficult as it is often a proxy for economic politics. What I find most damning are the "certainties" that; we ruin the U.S./global economy in pointless remediation, or, we ruin the finely-tuned environmental balance for short-term profits. Suffice it to say that I find both ideas woefully unrealistic. If economics were truly a primary concern, then I should think most science-minded "wonks" would realize there is a global rush to invest and develop alternative sources of energy. What matters most is maintaining our dominance in inventing, patenting, and profiting from invention. To cede the frontier without serious effort would be the worst possible financial outcome. (In my estimation, it would be orders of magnitude greater than GM loss of marketshare to Toyota.)
But I digress. I'm struck by how important the need is for accurate, historical measures of CO2 and other climate influences. Surely there must be a brilliantly simple measure waiting to be discovered. Last year I recall reading of accumulated tree-ring data that went back several millennium, but I suppose expanding said time line to 100,000 years would be nearly impossible without conclusive dating (perhaps by correlation of mtDNA?)
Again, thanks for the correspondence.
R Hampton
I think you have struck another vitally important point: We in the USA are the people with the technology and the spirit of entrepreunership and the inventiveness who can "fix" this. Instead of moaning and arguing and wringing our hands and calling each other names, we should launch a wholesale national effort to develop alternative energy sources which we then must give to China and India, or surely they will run up the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to levels which are much more likely to drive the global climate toward a crisis.
What is the source of the $$ we will need to do this? Not oil-company profits, not some new general tax, not sovereign-wealth funds, but the difference between what Americans pay for energy and what that energy is really worth. Our economy is now a $12 trillion/year enterprise. Direct energy expenditures are about 10% of that. If we doubled the cost of energy (gradually, say over a decade) we would soon have $1.2 trillion/year to use for all kinds of environmental projects, and the rising cost of energy might eventually persuade Americans to use less.
We could address the Top 10 environmental problems even as we started to bring down the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Win-win.
Many years ago I worked on a project trying to extend the tree-ring chronology back before the sequence that had then been established by counting the rings of very old living Bristlecone Pine trees in the White Mountains of CA and cross-dating those trees with downed trees lying on the forest floor. By that method the dendrochronologists had extended the record back to 10,800 years, and we were using that dated wood to calibrate the radiocarbon chronology. We knew that cones from Bristlecone pines had been discovered in fossil pack-rat middens in the same mountain range, and that those cones dated ~24,000 years ago (by radiocarbon). If there were cones, there must have been trees, but we never found trees older than 10,800, even buried in the sediment around that mountain range.
The New Zealanders have built up a tree-ring chronology on Kauri trees that goes back to 50,000 years, but so far that is the longest continual sequence. People in our department are studying 43-million-year-old trees preserved in sediment on Axel Heiberg Island. Original cellulose is preserved in those trees; we are hopeful that, eventually, we will be able to reconstruct many aspects of those forests and, perhaps, the atmosphere above them.
Bob Giegengack
a talk by Gieg on Dennis Prager's show about a year ago. He is often thought of as an AGW sceptic, and I think Prager sought him on that basis, but he didn't really fit that description on the show. He's a geologist and paleontologist, and so there's a heavy emphasis on CO2 in the paleo record. Of course, I don't agree with his dismissal of computer modelling, and I know that he's wrong when he says that climate models have less data than econometric models. They typically have huge amounts of data from satellites and continuously measuring ground stations.
There's a lot of divergent aspects covered in this exchange, and it may take a bit more input from the diarist to get us focussed.
The transcript of Gieg's talk that we discussed has moved and is here. There's a lot in common with these emails.
Of pointing out the problems. There is always a context in this debate. The global warming people insist that we act now in ways that range for horribly destructive to human civilization to just highly damaging to our economies.
There is also an implied bribe to any climatologist willing to take up the cause. Note well this is not a conspiracy its just a fact. You have politicians who want a doom and gloom scenario so they can gain more power. Climatologists that support it will gain as the scenario gains mindshare and legislation.
Those on your side of the argument fail to realize the standards of proof needed before taking these drastic steps. Whats worse your lot have removed it from the realm of sober discussion and turned it into a WWF steel cage match.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
should really start from an opposite premise. You do not simply assert that the Earth is able to absorb the millions of tons of particulate pollutants spewed into the biosphere by industrialization and then challenge everyone to prove otherwise.
Rather, you start with the premise that, in fact, industrialization is spewing millions of tons of particulate matter and poisons into the atmosphere, an undisputed fact, then you ask whether that has an impact, you concede there is not enough data to accurately answer that question, but you acknowledge the possibility and then YOU (industry) must discuss responsible stewardship of this planet and whether there is even such a thing as responsible regulation and restriction.
Of course, you must also acknowledge the market pressure on the part of industry to deny even the potential of this phenomenon, because such WILL result in some degree of restriction or limitation and, consequently, will effect profits.
But I submit that an "honest" discussion of the issue requires industry to justify why the pursuit of profit should trump the responsible stewardship of the environment, which I consider a conservative issue.
Down with the profit-taking exploiters!
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
You cannot have an "honest discussion" about global warming if you begin from the wrong minded premise that: a) that industry isn't inclined to pollute for profit; or b) it isn't even possible that industrial waste can cause the problem.
The more you do that and the more you ignore the legitimate science on the topic, the less "honest" your discussion becomes.
Call another commenter a liar again and you're gone.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
There are plenty of places in this world where pollution is creating health hazards right now. Where the very old and very young and those with other health risks are told not to go outside some days because the air is foul. Or where where we cannot swim, the fish cannot be eaten, or the fish are dying due to the effects of pollution. We don't need a global bogeyman to distract us. Why should we waste money, resources, press coverage and political clout trying to change something we likely will have little effect on, assuming it is a problem? We should work to fix things we know are wrong and that we know we can do something about! That would make the world a better place for all of us.
Since we know CO2 levels have doubled since the start of the industrial revolution, we need to know - FIRST - if this is just a coincidence. The next piece of evidence comes from the change in carbon isotope levels in seawater, which is indicative of anthropogenic CO2. Together, these changes have transpired much faster than the many thousands of years typical of natural events. Thus, I wanted to know if this unique circumstance can support conclusions other than man -- that is, what natural phenomena (if any) also fit the pattern.
The answer provides two possible routes of investigation:
1) there are no known natural phenomena that meet the criteria, so the debate can move past this point.
2) there are known natural phenomena that meet the criteria, so other means are needed to eliminate rival explanations.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
We can measure well both the total fossil carbon burnt and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Cumulatively, we've burnt just over 300 gigatons, and about 200 Gt has accumulated in the atmosphere. The rest seems to go into the sea. Not only do the quantities match, but so does the time course:
And as you say, the isotope signature indicates that the extra 200 Gt in the air is from a fossil origin.
Gieg says all this very clearly in his radio talk:
We’re adding another 2 billion tons, maybe 2.5, by tropical deforestation, something between 8.5 and 9 billion tons a year of carbon is going in the atmosphere. But only 3.5 billion tons stays there. And the rest of it, we know are looking, we know that 2, 2.5 tons are going back in the ocean. The rest of it is being driven back into some Earth surface reservoir, the soils, the permafrost, the forest, we don’t know exactly where it’s going, but many people have good ideas. So the one thing that’s different in the present warming trend, we have reversed the flow of carbon. Now it’s going from the atmosphere into the Earth’s surface reservoirs.
Yeah. And they say they're now ninety percent confident that human activity is contributing to the present rate of global warming, and I would certainly tell you I share that confidence. The production of CO2 by human activity and delivery of that CO2 to the atmosphere seems, at least temporarily, to have overwhelmed the processes that normally would store it somewhere else, and I do think that we're adding to the total inventory of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's more difficult to determine the direct impact of that on the climate.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Hmm, is that first one the infamous "shifted" Siple curve?
The one that really came out like this:
But which was subsequently, umm, "adjusted" to look like this?
(Took some tracking, but source here.)
That should be a blog in itself. Seriously there is never enough to say about how these people distort things.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
This guy is a crank. None of the results are in the scientific literature. In fact, the paper you cite is listed as written for the US Senate, but there's no record of him there. This statement, and a general debunking, can be found here.
There is much more than Siple data contributing to this plot, but here is a current DOE graph of the Siple data, which agrees with the plot I showed. More here
Incidentally, the lin k I gave for that plot above isn't the one I meant - this link shows the supporting material and references.
DOE Siple plot:
Well, I'll give you points for consistency.
Anyone who disagrees with the theocracy is a "crank."
Any facts that do not conform to the theology must be disposed of.
At least the theocracy is numerous. You're prepared to dismiss the Siple results as "infamous" on the basis of a ms that this chap might get around to sending to the Senate some day?
"tons of particulates" are not greenhouse gases.
You're in the wrong line. This is "global warming" (see the sign?); "killing the planet" is over there.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Your reply has nothing to do with the comment you replied to. Enquiring minds also seek information on who made you the arbiter of honesty and what must be ?
A goverment that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.
Barry Goldwater
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
===
This post has been brought to by Thorazyne and other psychotropic drugs -- better living through chemistry
Oh, I see he's been banned.
Never mind.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
it would start from the understanding that wealthy economies pollute less, since they have the excess wealth to spend on reducing pollution (which does not include naturally occurring gasses like say CO2). Therefore we would recognize that any policy likely to reduce the world's wealth is likely to increase not decrease pollution. Poor third world eonomies don't build clean nuclear power plants. They burn peat or wood.
There are a win-win solutions. Consider a micro-loan program (already a proven success) that's focused on providing individualized electric generation that's easily scalable. Not only does it - literally - empower the poor, but it adds millions (if not billions) of new consumers to the global economy.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
We're going to drive industry with vibrating mylar strips. Cut me a break. Easily scalable? You obviously don't know much about engineering. I heard him talking about pie in the sky ideas about scaling that contraption upward, but where are the actual plans where he has to look at structural strength and weight. Notice he isn't driving anything that takes any real power. Call me when he powers a waffle iron or hair dryer with this.
Besides, what does this clip have to do with my observation (not hypothesis - because it has already been proven-See Communist Russia and pollution of Ural Sea and peat burning in Indonesia) that poor societies produce more pollution than rich societies.
In much of the third world, where most people have very modest energy demands, industry isn't the primary concern when rudimentary infrastructural investment, like roads, water and sewers, are few and far between. So the example I gave is intended to be just that - an example of the near future (apx. a decade away).
Now I could overload you with countless other examples, but suffice it to say that energy generation and storage is at a moment of great transition -- from mechanical engineering to molecular (nano) engineering wherein the basic properties of matter and energy exhibit unsual and profitable behaviors (like carbon in the form of graphene)
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
call me when you can run a pump or hair dryer , or water heater. Solar power is neat to tinker with, but unless you can beat the basic problem or the solar constant, and cloud cover, we're not going to power industrialized nations with it. That means we're stuck with fossil fuels and nuclear. So we better not impoverish the west by ridiculous carbon taxes, because we are going to need all the extra capital we can generate to figure out ways to use the fossil fuels in cleaner ways. I don't think India and China are going to wait ten years to industrialize. They are going to burn coal oil and build nuclear plants. And you know what? As they get richer, they will place a higher value on clean air and water (kind of like here). With respect to the third world, if they can drop their facinations with marxism and dictatorships, you may see very rapid industrialization. It is a continent very rich in natural resources. If not, not much will change.
You haven't been keeping up with the scientific literature if you think fossil fuels and nuclear energy are the end of human achievement. Solar energy isn't confined to a narrow spectrum of visible light, vulnerable to cloud cover - energy can be extracted from all of the wavelengths emitted by the sun. And I'm not just referring to some pie-in-the-sky future.
Personally, it doesn't matter to me if you are a pessimist and doubt the ingenuity of American. I know there is great reason to bet on our future in alternative energy, as long as we do not to take it for granted that we are destined to win the race -- especially to the oil rich GCC nations preparing for a post-petroleum future by pouring billions into R&D.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...
---Thomas Paine---
Why do i get the feeling this guy had an axe to grind ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You do not simply assert that the Earth is able to absorb the millions of tons of particulate pollutants spewed into the biosphere by industrialization and then challenge everyone to prove otherwise.
So instead you make a claim that the result will be a runaway global warming scenario that's never been observed in the climate record (at least, not on this planet), make up an endless list of dire outcomes, attribute every weather event that doesn't exactly match the "average" to your make-beleive disaster, and THEN challenge everyone to prove otherwise.
More proof that they do a really REALLY bad job teaching the scientific meathod in school these days.
____________________________-
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
There is absolutely NO proof that man is adversely affecting the earth's climate! You environmentalist loons have always used the environment to push your socialist platforms. Profit is what makes the world go round. You are a bold faced troll!
Tim Schieferecke
pollutant is hardly a rational starting point.
And yes, the earth is equipped to absorb a heck of a lot of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
To be fair, there is such a thing as CO2 poisoning (a.k.a Hypercapnia, Hypercarbia, Acidosis, etc.), but that's not the danger we face from the global increase of carbon dioxide.
CO2 is simply a molecule, but put enough of it into the atmosphere and things change; like climate, ocean chemistry, the success or failure of ecosystems, etc. Of course the earth continues and life adapts - in the big picture things work out fine - but on the scale of human lifetimes, things can get rough. Where are we now and what should we expect? That's to be determined.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
You have politicians who want a doom and gloom scenario... before taking these drastic steps.
The global warming people insist that we act now in ways that range for [sic] horribly destructive to human civilization to just highly damaging to our economies.
Those objecting to "The Day After Tomorrow" scenarios should not so closely juxtapose their own "doom and gloom" argumentation. It does shine a light on the interestingly different takes on these two potential outcomes in the readership of this site. On the one hand it is absolutely positively obvious that the world economy would be annihilated by even considering the mitigation of carbon release into the atmosphere, irrespective of the actual policies used. On the other hand, the effect on the climate of atmospheric carbon is hopelessly unknowable, unpredictable and immutable.
Those of us who work with computer models of physical processes acquire a healthy contempt for their utility. How many of us base our retirement strategies on the econometric models that theoretical economists manipulate? (one famous Wharton professor has predicted 12 of the last 3 recessions...). What gives me pause in comparing those 2 kinds of models is the realization that the econometric models are far richer in data, maybe orders of magnitude richer, than the climate models, and they still aren't very useful.
Well, they are useful when one can ascribe absolute certainty to them when convenient for making an argument. When we respond to what we perceive as "bogeymen", let us not, as a tactic, do exactly what we profess to disdain.
After all when we are talking about the plans to reduce carbon emissions. We refer to your sides positions.
I.E. we would need to stop all now and it would still be going on for a long long time.
Or do you have an idea you actually want to put forward ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
is merely a special case of "garbage in, garbage out". I'm sure you are aware of the massively multivariable nature of the models, and how difficult it is to get the things to converge, how much intellectual pressure there is to get them to converge, and how important it is that the "right" answer be found. Throw in politics, and you virtually assure a biased result.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
You don't need to look much farther than a "spaghetti map" - the tool used to average the 12-15 different computer models forecasting hurricane trajectories. With a current position of a storm in the Caribbean, one model will forecast landfall in the Gulf Coast, another in Yucatan, one in Georgia and still another with a track toward Bermuda. They're mainly useful in understanding the full spectrum of credible forecasts.
And then there's the economy, a system that probably compares with global climate in terms of the chaos, complexity, and unknowable inputs. The hedge fund guys have that deal down pat, what with Black-Scholes and unlimited computer horsepower. But they were wrong.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
They're mainly useful in understanding the full spectrum of credible forecasts.
As someone who personally has a very healthy skepticism of any computer model, what can get me worried is many different models producing a spectrum of outcomes which is universally undesirable. Unfortunately we see that in the global warming predictions.
He has not been highjacked by the fear machine.
Congratulations on having this exchange, and thank you for sharing it.
Regards,
Ed
With regards to the fear machine, remember that unless you have access to the primary literature on climate and climate change it is very rare that you get an unvarnished look at what the scientific community really thinks. It is always filtered through the media, and the media looks for stories that are "interesting". The notion of a total collapse of the ice sheets and Manhattan under water is a powerful image and makes good press, but I can't think of anyone off the top of my head who really thinks that is a very likely possibility.
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." --- Mark Twain.
Andrew Dressler, his pal, for a followup.
This is a part of the insidious nature of this sort of cascade. The most extreme ideas become fixed inthe public square, and the promoters are profiting from the fear, but they are seldom held accountable for the hype.
I meant actual scientists working on the problem of climate change. Certainly people have calculated what would happen in the case of a total collapse but I don't know of anyone working in the field who actually thinks it is likely to happen any time soon.
"Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." --- Mark Twain.
Any intelligent person can understand and discuss the qualitative issues in global warming -- CO2, vegetation, cloud formation, etc. But the real answers lie in quantitative analysis, and that is outside the scope of what amateurs can do. Maybe it is outside the scope of what "climate scientists" can do also. It leaves us in the frustrating position of just listening to experts argue. We root for the people who say what we want to hear, but that doesn't bring us any closer to genuine knowledge.
The frustration is that we don't know the answer to a very important question, because the issue is mired in politics.
We can't send satellites back in time to give us a few hundred or even thousand years of climate data.
Even the experts have nothing more of substance to work with than we do, unless you want error bars so big as to render the data meaningless.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Tweaking CAFE standards ain't going to matter if the climate models are right. We'd have to basically stop using oil for transportation and coal for electricity generation in the next 30-40 years for it to even begin to matter, as dire as their predictions are.
We have a tendency to focus on SUV's as the culprit, but it's necessary to remember that Indonesian peat fires can equal all of the CO2 output of the U.S. Maybe it would make more sense to buy Indonesia, pave it over, and keep driving our SUV's.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
"If we doubled the cost of energy (gradually, say over a decade) we would soon have $1.2 trillion/year to use for all kinds of environmental projects, and the rising cost of energy might eventually persuade Americans to use less."
This part of the honest discussing gave me more than just a little heartburn. It sounded to me like he was talking about imposing a 10% tax on our entire $12 trillion dollar economy to fund environmental projects.
He suggested an energy tax (used in place of all the other measures, including carbon caps) to fund alternative energy projects - the express purpose of which is to secure our future dominance in a post-petroleum future. We could be the next Saudi Arabia if we own the bulk of the patents, licences, and contracts to come from new methods of energy generation. If you don't agree with his funding solution - fine - that's just one path to reach the desired goal.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Actually, he says that we should develop all these wonderful new technologies.... and then just give them away (to China and India and others) for the good of humanity.... so there would be no "American" monopoly on anything developed.
Be careful too with the Saudi Arabia analogy, since this is apples and oranges. Saudi Arabia is the Saudi Arabia of petroleum because there is a physical substance located inside the territorial boundaries of Saudi Arabia. Unless the great next-gen unknown whatever were to be located inside U.S. borders (in considerable disproportion), there couldn't be a similar situation.
The reality is that if the next-gen whatever is indeed going to be a "technology" or "technologies" of some sort, it would have to be developed in the commercial sector - and in almost anything today (but especially in technology) things are done globally in a borderless fashion (I speak from daily direct experience). There's just no way today for any one "country" (even the U.S.) to have a technology monopoly. And of course the ultimate reality is that "America" doesn't do business - Americans do. It just isn't possible or feasible to put a fence around the work and the people and keep it all 100% "American" in both geography and staffing.
(Perhaps Vladimir could jump in here and give us some comments on the oil business - particularly the difference between "who has the black goop in the ground" and who (and where) has the know-how for processing the stuff into something marketable.)
Last, the gent (as per the subject) is economically very naive. He's proposing to basically confiscate 10% of the US economy, to the tune of $1.2 trillion a year. There's no free lunch; this would have catastrophic consequences as it took capital and investment away from a gargantuan number of promising things. (Ever tried to raise VC money? It's tough enough when there's money available!) This is the classic attempt to "throw money at a problem," and that always has the same dolorous outcome.
Doing that kind of misdirection would be bad enough in general, even if everything was on the up-and-up. But dump $1.2 trillion worth of potato salad on the kitchen floor and wow are you going to attract roaches. Sadly, "energy technology" is horribly infested with freaks and kooks, and also with frauds and snake oil salesmen. It would end up mostly going to nonsense (see file on late 1970s), and when it all fell apart the pols who pushed it would just shrug and say, "Oh, never mind." Better to leave that kind of coin dispersed and among many private hands who are clearly better at allocating it....
Not sure if I have anything relevant to add, except that physical ownership of oil reserves in the ground is only a part (albeit an important part) of the overall picture.
Even Jed Clampett was an effective oil man when all he had to do was gather & sell what Mother Nature caused to flow out of the ground on its own. What separates the good producers from the bad producers is efficiency - notably, how can you economically optimize the percentage of the "oil in place" that you can actually get out of the ground. That's a complicated engineering question, and most of the national oil companies are conspicuously bad at it. (Petrobras and maybe Saudi Aramco would be the exceptions.) For the most part, the NOC's are politically, not economically driven. For many of them, efficiency, economics and stewardship are unknown concepts.
Those are the things (along with innovation and world-class technology) that western firms bring to the picnic. Not just the producers, but the service companies, too, like the dreaded Halliburton.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
First he managed to combine prospecting, production, food production and recreation in one activity. The efficiency boggles the mind. Then you had granny producing all kinds of distillate.
As a side note he was a great proponent of the second amendment.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm not interested in a Federally owned alternative energy project (the Pentagon is already doing that for us), but in stimulating the private development alternative energy technologies and companies. One way to accomplish would be to shift the existing tax breaks and economic incentives given to the oil industry to the alternative energy industry.
The Saudi anaolgy applies because in an alternative energy world, no one will have a monopoly on sources (wind, solar, hydrogen, etc) that are themselves resistant to commoditization. Thus the real money will be in selling and servicing the extraction systems - that's where I want this nation (our economy) to be in the dominant position.
As for the "freaks, kooks, frauds and snake oil salesmen," try a change in your source material:
MIT Technology Review
Small Times
The Department of Energy's Office of Science
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
...like these? http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm
Or these? http://www.awea.org/news/energy_bill_extends_wind_power_072905.html
And which oil industry tax breaks are you interested in getting rid of? ("All of them" is not an answer.)
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Oil Subsidies in the Dock
Jerry Taylor & Peter Van Doren, National Review Online, January 17, 2007... The Democrats are on better ground, however, when they call for the elimination of preferential tax treatment afforded intangible domestic drilling expenses (primarily labor and material costs associated with finding and exploiting oil and gas fields). Normally, those expenses would be capitalized and the costs allocated as income is earned from the well over its useful life. Instead, current law allows firms to deduct those expenses in the first year while corporations may deduct 70 percent of the costs and depreciate the remaining 30 percent over five years. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that eliminating those preferences for intangible drilling expenses would save the taxpayer $7.6 billion over ten years. The bill also calls for increasing the amortization period for geological and geophysical expenditures from five years to seven, a reasonable tax change that yields a barely remarkable $104 million to the treasury over ten years.
Surprisingly enough, the Democrats’ oil-subsidy search-and-destroy operation is far less brutal than advertised. An ambitious and intellectually rigorous bill would have also targeted the accelerated depletion allowance provided to small oil producers (about another $7.6 billion over ten years), preferential expensing for equipment used to refine liquid fuels ($830 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for natural-gas distribution pipelines ($560 million over five years), accelerated depreciation for expenditures on dry holes (with unclear budgetary implications), and the exemption from passive loss limitation for owners of working interests in oil and gas properties ($200 million over five years)...
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Pardon me but I can't imagine how that's going to help.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I imagine horse breeders and carriage makers wondered about their future once the car appeared -- likewise the kerosene and whale oil suppliers when confronted with Edison's bulb. Should we have used the federal government to protect them?
Those who are smart adapt their businesses or start new ones, those that don't, well...
Then again, if we don't make the advances in technology and industry, I'm sure the Japanese, Chinese, and a host of other nations will -- and sell it at a premium. We already owe Japan $586 billion & China $400 billion (and they show no signs of shorting our appetite), so why worry?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Not yen or yuan.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You just got my reflex response to people that don't understand the mechanics of our borrowing and the currency flows.
Embedded in your reply is a mind boggling arrogance. I mean its stunning that you assume you can single handedly state that the entire human use of energy should be restructured on your say so . Have you even thought through the end it would be restructured to ?
The rest of your examples, well Edison is something of a personal hero of mine. The lightbulb did not receive a government subsidy. Neither did his electrical generation and distribution systems. (well discounting the purchase of electric chairs). If a new product actually is superior it will win in the market place on its own. (Thats how we define superior so please argue the point). What you propose is killing off a business and people's livelihoods because ? You think it amusing ? It appeals to some warped sense of appropriateness ? Somebody sold you a bill of goods about your role in the planet ? (BTW its to decompose)
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
In Edison's day, American industry and manufacturing had little competition from the rest of the world.
Today there is not much left of American manufacturing, and Asia is our equal in just about anything related to computer and information technologies. Upstarts India and China annually produce several hundred thousand engineers - each. While we hold a considerable edge in the quality of graduates, both nations have the funds and the desire to make great improvement. If that wasn't bad enough, the GCC is funding a staggering number of new cities, universities and labs to get into the global technology market, and China is funding a space program to equal our own - and why not? What else are they going to do with the money they've already made from us?
Like McCain told the folks in Detroit, the (old) jobs aren't coming back. It will be a slow but steady decline, so better to build our future now before they do it for us.
Oh, and as for arrogance - think about your assumption that ending Federal support of the American oil industry will lead to large-scale unemployment. Do you really believe they can't survive on their own?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Manufacturing has fluctuated up and down throughout our history. It peaked in the postwar period. Now if you are willing to destroy europe and asia again we might be able to get unskilled manufacturing jobs back. My guess is they would go to robots though as the nature of manufacturing has changed.
I also note for someone who decries our foreign debt you are also upset about the loss of manufacturing. They will self correct.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
In the 1990's, the Feds had a tax credit to encourage the oil & gas industry to develop technology for producing gas from unconventional reservoirs - shales, coals etc.
The tax credit ended in 2001, IIRC.
When the credit started, the amount of gas produced from unconventional sources was negligible. It is projected that by 2010, 40% of natural gas production will be from unconventional sources.
Sure, the producers made money, but this was a good deal for the taxpayer, too.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
In a post. And that it is of such spectacular nature that individual wrong points merit full replies.
We had a great deal of competition in Edisons day. Our chief competitors in the electrical, chemical and mechanical products markets were the germans. They had nearly 40% of the world market prior to the second world war in electromechanical products.
Oh as to us holding an edge in quality of graduates. Not those graduating from private colleges or state colleges. They are still producing graduates without a work ethic. The military academies do a much better job of correcting the deficits of a public education.
Oh, and as for arrogance - think about your assumption that ending Federal support of the American oil industry will lead to large-scale unemployment. Do you really believe they can't survive on their own?
No thats your assumption. I just asked what made you think you were qualified to decide how it should be run.
As you continue to post, I become ever more convinced that the answer is absolutely nothing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
No thats your assumption. I just asked what made you think you were qualified to decide how it should be run.
I don't understand how how you make this absurd claim. Go back to look at what I posted, and you will notice that my opinion is supported by the resources I linked to -including our military. Furthermore, all I suggested was shifting the tax breaks, incentives, and subsidies from oil to alternative energy, not how to run those companies. If they're smart, they will adapt on their own.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
You tell me to read more carefully ?
Especially after you make statements like
"In Edison's day, American industry and manufacturing had little competition from the rest of the world."
Or
"Today there is not much left of American manufacturing,"
No what you proposed doing was discouraging domestic production of oil and subsidizing less useful forms of energy with the hope they would get better.
Smart ? Boy thats just brilliant.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
First point: My goal is to create new energy industries BEFORE the rest of the world beats us to it.
Second point: The current economic conditions encourage domestic production without the need for tax incentives, subsidies, etc. Simply put, global demand exceeds global production. The growth of India, China, and even the GCC nations means there is not a downturn on the horizon.
Third point American industry in 1900 faced little competition - fact. (That doesn't mean I favor tariffs - just pointing out the difference in economic condtions a century ago.)
The Truth About Trade In History
Bruce Bartlett, CATO, 1997Around 1860, which was probably when the [United Kingdom] reached its zenith in relative terms ... With 2% of the world's population, the UK produced 53% percent of the world's iron and 50% of its coal and lignite ... was responsible for 1/5 of the world's commerce, but for 2/3 of the trade in manufactured goods
The reversal of Great Britain's free-trade policy began as a reaction to Germany, which imposed a protectionist tariff in 1879 under pressure from its big businesses ... The period from 1886 to 1914 witnessed a great change in English policy. It is the period of abandonment of laissez-faire in colonization, commerce, industry and agriculture. Great Britain began to modify her cosmopolitan ideas of free trade and laissez-faire, and to concentrate on developing trade within the British Empire...
America has experienced several phases in its trade history. It is more accurate to say that the country grew in spite of import restrictions ... In the election of 1888, Republicans called for tariffs to protect American manufacturing ... Protectionist tariffs remained the bedrock of economic policy of the Republican Party for the next 20 years. Indeed, Republicans were so intent on passing the Payne-Aldrich tariff in 1909 that President William Howard Taft supported the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution creating a federal income tax as the political price for Democratic support of the tariff. That has to have been one of the worst deals in history -- a lose-lose situation if ever there was one.
The Underwood tariff of 1913, passed early in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson, liberalized trade somewhat. But as soon as the Republicans reassumed power after World War I, they raised tariffs again. The Fordney-McCumber tariff of 1922 generally increased tariff rates across the board. However, it also gave the President power to raise or lower existing tariffs by 50%.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
If we didn't have foreign competition why would we worry about tariffs ? No competition means no need for tariffs.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Because the reply area has become so narrow, I posted my reply at the end of the comments.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Usually folks want to call Dept of Defense expenditures on the Central Command "subsidies for oil and gas".
"The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that eliminating those preferences for intangible drilling expenses would save the taxpayer $7.6 billion over ten years."
Turn that around, and you'd see that elimination of the preference would have cost operators $7.6 billion, which makes risking the money less attractive in the first place. As Joliphant pointed out, it would discourage drilling and, ultimately, increase product costs.
"An ambitious and intellectually rigorous bill would have also targeted the accelerated depletion allowance provided to small oil producers (about another $7.6 billion over ten years),..."
Ditto, except that most folks don't realize that 90% of domestic wells are drilled by those small producers, not the majors. You'll pay the $7.6 billion (maybe more) in the form of higher prices and less secure supply, especially for natural gas.
"...accelerated depreciation for expenditures on dry holes..."
Dry holes are completely failed investments. Take it away, you discourage the producer from taking risk, maybe the risk that will find a new big field.
"...and the exemption from passive loss limitation for owners of working interests in oil and gas properties ($200 million over five years)..."
Taking a non-operating working interest in a drilling venture is in no way a "passive" activity.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
I suspect that even small players can survive quite well, free of pork, in an environment of ever-increasing global demand. Besides, if the mature American oil industry can't turn a profit when crude goes for $100 a barrel and the Federal government provides billions annually in tax breaks, subsidies and incentives, then perhaps it's time to call it a day.
As for the military and oil:
Trouble at The Pump
Katherine McIntire Peters, Government Executive, June 1, 2007A leading proponent of transforming U.S. energy policy is Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a conservative Republican representing Maryland's 6th District and a former federal research scientist who is sometimes at odds with his party on energy issues. He voted against the 2005 Energy Policy Act because, in his view, it fell short of seriously addressing dependence on foreign oil and promoting alternative energy sources. Bartlett has given more than 28 floor speeches in Congress aimed at raising awareness about the potentially debilitating nature of the country's dependence on oil and related challenges such as climate change.
...Retired Adm. Joseph W. Prueher, former commander in chief of U.S. Pacific Command and former ambassador to China under two presidents, said focusing on climate change is not a distraction from more pressing security issues. Our current energy supply is "finite, foreign and fickle," Prueher told members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in May. "Continued pursuit of overseas energy supplies, and our addiction to them, cause a great loss of leverage in the international arena. Ironically, a focus on climate change may actually help us on this count. Key elements of the solution set for climate change are the same ones we would use to gain energy sovereignty."
Further Reading:
National Security Consequences of U.S. Oil Dependency
Council on Foreign Relations, October 2006
Transforming the Way DoD Looks at Energy
LMI, Report FT6021T1 / April 2007
National Security and the Threat of Climate Change
CNA Corporation, May 2007
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
The U.S. has the most mature oil fields in the world. It's difficult to compete with foreign sources, given the fact that a small domestic producer may be targeting a 50 barrel per day well while 5000 barrels per day might be possible in a less mature foreign basin.
"Our current energy supply is 'finite, foreign and fickle,' Prueher told members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in May. 'Continued pursuit of overseas energy supplies, and our addiction to them, cause a great loss of leverage in the international arena.'"
Letting the domestic industry wither on the vine is not the way to reduce dependence on foreign oil. We are going to be burning gasoline in cars, even in Priuses, for the foreseeable future. A healthy domestic industry could help ease the transition to an alternative fuel future - whenever we get around to deciding what that fuel should be.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Did you read the links to the Pentagon synthetic fuel program? National security and energy security require a move from petroleum to alternatives. Synthetic fuels, hybrid vehicles and advances in battery technology mean more miles per unit of gas. The way to a healthy economy is investing in the future, and getting the rewards before everyone else does.
Emissions Mandates Would Undermine National Security
James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. & Oliver Horn, The Heritage Foundation, October 30, 2007Today, every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the military an additional $1 billion in operating costs. In terms of operations, fuel represents more than half of the DOD's logistics tonnage and more than 70% of the tonnage required to deploy the Army. Consequently, reducing fuel consumption would alleviate both a significant expense and a strategic weakness.
The following initiatives would help address the DOD's energy issues:
* Building nuclear cruisers and expanding the submarine force;
* Expanding research into synthetic fuels;
* Continuing research and development into next-generation batteries, fuel cells, and composite materials;
* Ending congressional earmarks in the Pentagon's R&D budgets, allowing the services to focus research dollars on real needs;
* Accelerating development and production of a new bomber that uses less fuel to put more bombs on targets; and
* Accelerating the fielding of next-generation ground vehicles.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
in any discussion of GW? I believe I read that measurements taken of other planets (Mars was one) show an increase in temperature?
First, we must resolve the question; Is there Global Warming?
Second, we must determine,as best as possible,the cause.
Without answering those questions, we cannot take any useful steps to mitigate the problem (if there are any). Anything thing else is just politics.
My favorite solution is to shift industry and people to outer space.
Burning up our energy and will in maintaining a closed system can only result in the inevitable collapse of humanity.
Moving into space and the other planets is the only truly long-term solution to humanity's existence.
__________________________________________________________
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Justice Robert H. Jackson
Now that's a useful suggestion. As they have just discovered that Saturn's moon, Titan, has more pools of hydrocarbon than does the Earth, (it must be the long-lost elephants' graveyard) we can burn up Titan's "fossil fuel" with no harm to the Earth's atmosphere!
In a time of global protectionism, American industry grew tremendously in spite of tariffs (foreign and domestic) -- our industries could scale the high walls imposed by tariffs and compete internationally, whereas most other [European] nations were trapped behind them.
Historical Aspects of U.S. Trade Policy
Douglas A. Irwin, NBER, Summer 2006For most of the century, the United States had a strong comparative advantage in agricultural goods and exported mainly raw cotton, grains, and meat products in exchange for imports of manufactured goods. But in the mid-1890s, America's exports of manufactures began to surge. Manufactured goods jumped from 20% of U.S. exports in 1890 to 35% by 1900 and nearly 50% by 1913. In about two decades, the United States reversed a century-old trade pattern and became a large net exporter of manufactured goods...
the commercial exploitation of the Mesabi iron ore range in Minnesota reduced domestic ore prices by 50% in the mid-1890s and was equivalent to over a decade's worth of industry productivity improvement in its effect on iron and steel export prices. The non-tradability of American ore resulted in its distinctive impact on the pattern of U.S. trade; whereas raw cotton was tradable, and hence the domestic cotton textile industry did not reap an advantage from having local production of cotton, iron ore and other minerals were difficult to trade, and therefore they were exported in final products, not in raw form.
The justification of American tariffs:
The Tariff History of the United States
F.W. Taussig, G.P Putnam’s Sons, 1910The position of both parties was in this way sharply defined, and in the campaign of 1888 the tariff question was the issue squarely presented ... The victory of the Republicans in 1888, and the election of President Harrison, were the results of the issue thus placed before the voters. The election was won by a narrow margin, and was affected by certain factors which stood apart from the main issue ... On the whole, however, the Republicans held their own, and even made gains, throughout the country, on the tariff issue; and they might fairly consider the result a popular verdict in favor of the system of protection.
Wikipedia:
Tariff in American history - Civil War Protective Policy, 1861-1913
Apart from wool and woolens, American industry and agriculture—and industrial workers—had become the most efficient in the world by the 1880s. They were not at risk from cheap imports. No other country had the industrial capacity, the high efficiency and low costs, or the complex distribution system needed to compete in the vast American market. Indeed, it was the British who watched in stunned horror as cheaper American products flooded their home islands. Wailed the London Daily Mail in 1900,
"We have lost to the American manufacturer electrical machinery, locomotives, steel rails, sugar-producing and agricultural machinery, and latterly even stationary engines, the pride and backbone of the British engineering industry."
Nevertheless American manufacturers and workers demanded the high tariff be maintained. The tariff represented a complex balance of forces. Railroads, for example, consumed vast quantities of steel. To the extent tariffs raised steel prices, they felt injured. The Republicans became masters of negotiating exceedingly complex arrangements so that inside each of their congressional districts there were more satisfied "winners" than disgruntled "losers." The tariff after 1880 was an ideological relic with no economic rationale—it was a timebomb waiting to explode—and it repeatedly did explode.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
All you have shown is that we had cheaper raw material costs. Your solution is to make it harder for us to get the worlds prime raw material ? This is mindboggling.
Your quote further underlies the idiocy.
the commercial exploitation of the Mesabi iron ore range in Minnesota reduced domestic ore prices by 50% in the mid-1890s and was equivalent to over a decade's worth of industry productivity improvement in its effect on iron and steel export price
Should we start issuing export taxes ?
This is in effect you are advocating. Any product that we have that can be incorporated or used to make other products would need to be taxed on export to achieve a similar effect.
As to the British losing to us, they also lost to the Germans and central Europeans. Oddly enough this coincides with increasing centralization and socialization of their government. Go figure.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If we didn't have foreign competition why would we worry about tariffs ? No competition means no need for tariffs.
To recap, the global tariff fever was a product of the late 19th century. Yet by 1895, many U.S. industries (like steel) had grown so strong -- thanks to large immigrant populations depressing labor costs and technological innovations increasing worker productivity -- that tariff barriers could not supress the economic advantages of European nations importing America goods. Adding insult to injuty, European tariffs caused the Republican government to enact tariffs as a reprisal, limiting imports of Old World goods. So when 1900 rolls around, we no longer have much in the way of foreign competition and yet tariffs are still a political winner for the GOP because they were popular with the public.
Also, please re-read my posts. You will notice that I suggested shifting the tax incentives and subsidies from oil to alternative energy - and that's it.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
It was a nearly 50% tax on imported manufactured goods. It caused massive price rises for the working man and was tremendously unpopular. The resentment to the tax by farmers who had their prices go through the roof created the populist party.
So if we had little to no competition why the worry ?
Let me help you here, First rule of holes: When in one stop digging
Also, please re-read my posts. You will notice that I suggested shifting the tax incentives and subsidies from oil to alternative energy - and that's it.
You might have sold that, before you brought in all this insanity about trade. Your comments about dying industries being cut down are also indicative. If you really believed that you would have just said let alternative energy have a similar subsidy to conventional energy of course it already has a better set of subsidies and at the expense of oil. Gee that oil must be great stuff if people still use it so much
Oh and sorry the McKinley
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It abetted its rise by providing disgruntled farmers another grievance, but agrarian third parties were a mainstay of the late 19th century. In fact, McKinley's 1896 smackdown of William Jennings Bryan's fusion ticket ended the Populist movement, or at least moved it within the Democratic Party.
“One element in the strength of any government is the patriotism of the people, their love for its institutions, their pride for its name and achievements.” ~ William McKinley
Just goes to show that I should take more time in posting.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I'm going to let the "trade insanity" comment slide - I know I have history on my side.
As I said before, the global supply of oil can not meet global demand. So the marketplace is stimulating the mature oil industry well beyond any justification for tax incentives and subsidies. Simply put, there could not be a better, more profitable scenario for the oil industry.
The alternative energy industries, however, are still quite young and growing and would benefit substantially from tax incentives and subsidies. So rather than adding more tax codes (one form of bigger government), what I suggested shifts what is already in place. [the breaks for oil dwarf those for alternative energy]
Of course in an ideal conservative economic model, there are no tax incentives or subsidies for anyone or any company - the market sorts out winners and losers. Some, like myself, are willing to compromise on new and growing sectors of the economy since they represent our future survival. But the corporate welfare should be temporary, directly related to the achievement of growth, and include sunset provisions.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Stimulate its replacements.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Yes they do - and in a global marketplace, they stimulate global competitors. So if you want American industry to dominate, incentives encourage development faster than the market alone can achieve. That's why I suggest to limit the incentives and subsidies specifically to the growth phase.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Or software ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
In both cases, we were there first and built a dominant position before competition arrived. That's not the case anymore. (see SIA (Semiconductor Industry Assc) Supports President’s Call for Renewed Push on Competitiveness Agenda) Alternative energy will require new methods of manufacturing and new factories, and right now Asia has a considerable economic advantage, helped in part by their chip labs and foundaries (see Asian bonanza as chip output soars).
Software is even more susceptible to foreign competition since all is needed is a computer, an internet connection, and a good, logical mind. Game software is a particularly fierce field where Japanese and European countries provide stiff competition - yet when the Atari launched the home video game market 30 years ago, we had the field to ourselves.
Alternative energy is one race where we have been fighting for position since the starting gun fired.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But our current place owes much to the circumstances at the start of the respective industries that allowed us to build a commanding lead. Even so, that didn't help Detroit and GM now faces a Toyota that's about to surpass them.
The moral of the story? Don't be complacent, and don't take for granted American dominance.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
And you still aren't getting it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I think part of your skepticism comes from a notion that "my idea" is so far out as to be patently ridiculous. Therefore, I'm including this real-world example of "my idea:"
GE: Plenty of Tailwinds for Wind Power
Keith Johnson, WSJ blog, February 13, 2008GE, the biggest U.S. maker of wind turbines, told Reuters yesterday that 2008 revenues from turbine sales could approach $6 billion. That could mean as much as 4.2 gigawatts of turbines in 2008, if order-book prices from market-leader and price-setter Vestas are any guide ... Demand for wind power everywhere is so strong that GE says its turbine dance card is filled through 2010. That’s to be expected: A dicey supply-chain situation has all manufacturers struggling to keep up with orders from around the world. There are plenty of tailwinds for clean energy, including campaign-trail rhetoric, European and Asian incentives, stubborn fossil fuel prices, and climate-change fears. But the U.S. Congress has yet to extend tax credits for renewable energy, crucial to the sector’s development, and state-level support remains patchwork.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
And if they don't get extended the orders will disappear.
You really do need to read.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Ouch
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
So that's your argument? Do you think every refinery explosion, oil spill, or engine fire is a valid argument against the necessity of petroleum and the benefits of the oil industry?
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
Oh your question, no but the environmental people that pushed the windmill and your mindset do.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Those who favor alternative energy do not share one world view or belief system. As I mentioned previously, reputable figures and groups have put forth many sound reasons (e.g. military, economic, and energy security) to develop this young industry.
"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921
FDT's Principles