Here's an interesting post on McKitrick's idea. (This appeared as a
comment to another news item in the blog Climate and Capitalism.)
http://www.realclimate.org
- Bill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Somewhat off-topic, but topical:
I see John Tierney has an article and a post on his blog at the NY Times
discussing McKitrick’s idea of linking a carbon tax to a atmospheric temperature
measurement. He quotes Gavin and Eric in his post. There are several problems
with a “McKitrick Temperature Tax” , but I am intrigued by a “McKitrick Global
Heating Tax”. I put this comment on Tierney’s blog (version here corrected
slightly for grammar):
I think the idea of having a carbon tax linked to a measurement of global
warming is a terrific idea. If we can identify a metric that responds quickly to
changes in the planetary energy budget, then this is the best way to reward
efforts to reduce global heating. And when the planet stops heating, this system
will reward the decision makers who forecast the leveling off of heat buildup on
earth.
The problem is that McKitrick has proposed a rather esoteric measurement to tie
the carbon tax to. He and the skeptics, and Gavin Schmidt, all seem to agree
that atmospheric and surface temperature measurements suffer from a great deal
of natural variability, or measurement issues depending on which camp you want
to believe.
A second problem: Increasing temperatures in the atmosphere lags increasing heat
energy on earth by decades, and likely centuries . The oceans, land areas,
glaciers and ice caps are acting as heat sinks that absorb over 95% of any
energy imbalance for the planet, Until the ice melts off, and the oceans heat
and stop absorbing the excess energy in the planetary budget, the atmospheric
temperature won’t increase as rapidly as the heat is building up. And if we
eliminated GHG emissions tomorrow, the atmospheric temperature could continue to
rise for a century! Clearly we need a faster response mechanism.
What is needed is a metric that more directly measures the planetary energy
imbalance, and approximates the heat buildup on our planet.
Fortunately, the leading scientists seem to agree that ocean heating is the key
parameter, with ice melt an important contributor. Dr. Trenberth has published a
series of papers showing the planetary energy imbalance, and both Dr. Hansen and
the skeptic Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. agree that ocean heating is the key parameter.
So tie the carbon tax to sea level rise, which is a very robust and well known
measurement. Sea level rise is due primarily to thermal expansion of the sea
water and melt of land based ice sheets and glaciers, and thus accounts for over
92% of the planetary energy imbalance. SLR can be measured by satellites
accurately within 3 mm, roughly the annual rise seen over the last 15-20 years.
There is less variability than atmospheric temperature measurements.
When the planet stops heating, as the skeptics claim is happening now, then SLR
will stop, or slow to a much slower rate. The amount of heat being absorbed and
ice melt associated with SLR at 3 mm per year is enormous compared to
atmospheric air heating. If the skeptics are correct, the “McKitrick planetary
heating tax” would fall to zero within several years, probably 5-10 years at
most, and Dr. McKittrick will get the credit for the largest tax cut in history.
If temperatures were used instead of SLR, the McKitrick tax could continue to
rise for over a century before responding to the lack of heating or cooling of
the planet. Clearly SLR is a better metric to base a carbon tax.
i suggest you contact Gavin Schmidt again, and propose a carbon tax based on
SLR, using this well known measurement from the University of Colorado (the most
recent academic home of the Pielkes).
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
Kudos to Austin Vidich in a comment posted at midnight last night who suggested
SLR, and to many of the posters who quickly identified the lag problem with
atmospheric temperatures.
Comment by Paul Klemencic — 15 December 2009 @ 2:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Devine wrote:
when John Tierney actually presents a good idea (see
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15tier.html). It's a carbon
tax that automatically rises with the temperature of the earth. It was
proposed by Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph
in Ontario. If the earth gets hotter, the global warming skeptics are
proven wrong and we pay higher taxes; if it doesn't (fat chance!), the
scientists and environmentalists are proven wrong and the tax doesn't
go up.
The problem with the proposal is that McKitrick and Tierney want to
start the tax at a very low rate. It's just as hard to get past the
Big Oil-fueled opposition as a regular carbon tax. It probably won't
rise fast enough to stop or reverse global warming.
By the way, McKitrick summarizes most of the problems with cap'n
trade, the Obamaniac's alternative to any carbon tax: "the carbon tax
would be more effective at reducing emissions because it is simpler,
more transparent, easier to enforce and less vulnerable to accounting
tricks and political favoritism." It also doesn't involve a financial
market that can be gamed.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
