The Battle Over Climate Science

Upwind dumping? There is provable harm to others or there is not. How can my conception possibly be misconstrued to indicate I am indifferent to provable harm?

meerkat, please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems we are disagreeing only on the evidentiary standards we would demand as justification for taking punitive measures. If so, we might consider dropping the 'accusations of indifference' nonsense.

Here's another point to consider: Not all government actions are punitive. For example, subsidies. We are not morally compelled to subsidize anyone. Removing the carrot is an entirely different proposition than applying the stick, subject to a much lower evidentiary standard. I'm not certain what subsidies exist for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry, but I'm betting there are some.

Resolution need not be punitive but the main objective is to serve justice to achieve the highest quality result. In the case of elimination of greenhouse gas, I suppose a combination of voluntary, punitive and subsidy should be applied to achieve a just, highest quality result.

Maybe the upwind pollution isn't the best example but it compares to the moral complexity of global warming harm and abstraction. Typically the polluter benefits by continuing the damaging action and externalizing cost and harm to others, and have no incentive to serve justice voluntarily, having a fiduciary duty to minimize their cost and maximize their profit. Just action insures that change actually happens in the real world though.

I don't know about you but I enjoy this back and forth-- it's much better than the phony scientific arguments cut and pasted into the discussion.

It might reasonably be argued that subsidies, given our massive federal deficit, rob future generations.

On focusing on the highest quality outcome, you seem to be saying the end justifies the means. It does not... or perhaps I misunderstand?

There is a certain moral clarity that comes from defining "wrong" (non-defensive force), allowing maximum diversity... as opposed to defining "right", which invariably leads to forced conformity and oppression.

I too am enjoying the back and forth.

Thought I'd pop in to inject a bit of science.

Got a pic of some results that folks can display on their smartphones/iwhatevers, and put "skeptics" on the spot.

Here's a link to the pic, along with all the necessary background information folks will need to explain it all: tinyurl.com/globaltemperatureresults

An excellent and courageous article. Courageous because you knew that this reporting would bring out the nay-sayers and those in the establishment that will continue to fight the progress of knowledge. You know, those folks who are following in the footsteps of those who would hold the established positions of the times (e.g those in power):

- The world is flat
- The earth is the center of the universe
- The sun revolves around the earth
- Evolution didn't/doesn't happen
- Cigarettes don't cause lung cancer
- Abortion causes breast cancer
- Thalidomide is a great drug for pregnant women

Does this mean our knowledge and current theories of climate change are completely right? No, that's why the science has to continue on this. (And yes, even established science gets stuck.. Thomas Kuhn pointed this out years ago.)

Many of the arguments I've been reading are analogous to people arguing if and why the plane may be crashing or the ship may be sinking. Wouldn't you rather err on the side of doing something about it, just in case? Who knows, maybe there's an economic opportunity just waiting for us. (Or maybe it's passing us by in the U.S. - www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/03/india-green-energy-growth)

@skycaptain writes:

"You just pointed out something that contributes to global warming. You did not do anything to prove that humans have no impact."

Well said skycaptain.

I stopped by my local library this afternoon and read Clynees preposterous piece in the latest edition of "Popular Science". His nonsense is neither popular or science. Clynes article fails to provide his bona fides. It also utterly fails to explain why his biased opinion should be considered impartial in this debate.

Clynes' piece also fails to report the manifold dissenters to global warming alarmism. For example consider Gaia' scientist James Lovelock in a recent article: "I was 'alarmist' about climate change". Lovelock explains how he sheparded global climate alarmism until he recently recanted and announced "he now thinks he had been 'extrapolating too far.' "

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

Clynes also failed to include in his article the numerous public information requests that Michael Mann along with his buddy Sandowsky at Penn State AKA "Perv U" are disputing including requests for public information developed as a result of projects receiving federal grants and the pendant litigation concerning Mann's attempt to conceal this information.

If "Popular Science" plans to maintain any semblance of credibility or claims of scientific impartiality they would do well to do a better job of vetting their reporters and carefully explaining their mechanism for achieving unbiased scientific opinion.

I am taking action at the local level to cancel all subscriptions of "Popular Science" through associates and my local and regional libraries. The public does not deserve to read such tripe. I would encourage fellow readers encountering such fraudulent behavior encourage their local libraries to avoid the waste of public resources and cancel their subscription to "Popular Science".

Justice-bound quality would thwart oppression as that produces a low-quality state. Non-defensive force between people is clear and would be the same thing if quality is the property defended, but I don't think it is -- it's defense against direct, provable harm. But this is incomplete, can't arbiter or correct systemic wrongs and wrongs of relationship and dependency (in a mathematical sense) that produce misery and loss, such as a group action which undermines the foundation upon which an economy is possible or on which life depends. It isn't capable to advance good in law without first proving direct harm, which puts the cart before the horse. A moral system that advances good is more to the point and adaptive to dilemmas yet to arise in a world without precedent.

In the case of responding to climate change, I like a solution like this one - http://tinyurl.com/7p6jgba. I think it's fair and adaptable, not punitive but corrective, systemic and effective, stimulates the creativity and investment to move toward a higher quality state over time.

caerbannog, that's interesting work! One of my favorite ways to visualize the complexity of these things is with moving graphs showing relationships over time, like http://youtu.be/bbgUE04Y-Xg and http://youtu.be/gHZzACcYJRo (the latter produced by a skeptical physicist who adjusted for the heat island effect due to urbanization over time, which he suspected had distorted the calculation).

"The public does not deserve to read such tripe."
-Book burning censor

I would encourage fellow readers encountering such fraudulent behavior encourage their local libraries to avoid the waste of public resources and cancel their subscription to "Popular Science".

Here's hoping that local librarians simply smile and "circular file" any of those silly demands to cancel their Popular Science subscriptions...

"Wouldn't you rather err on the side of doing something about it, just in case?"

As your link proves, something is in fact being done about it... just in case.

Inventors all over the world are working feverishly on the problem. Alternative energy is becoming more competitive. Solar prices are dropping. Hybrid cars are becoming more common. Full electric cars are available and the prices are dropping. Self-driving cars are currently being road tested out in Nevada.

Or is that not what you had in mind? Would you simply shut down fossil fuels and witness the collapse of civilization?

Something IS being done about it... just in case.

"In the case of responding to climate change, I like a solution like this one - http://tinyurl.com/7p6jgba. I think it's fair and adaptable, not punitive but corrective, systemic and effective, stimulates the creativity and investment to move toward a higher quality state over time."

I would view carbon tax schemes as punitive, the control freak's dream, a bureaucratic nightmare. Oppressive government, here we come.

The non-punitive alternative would be a phase-out of fossil fuel subsides.

What I am seeing in the comments is the desire, not so much to find solutions as to lash out and smite the non-believers.

meerkat... how does it make sense to enact carbon taxes when subsidies exist, to take away money in the form of taxes and hand it back in the form of subsidies? This only makes sense to those who covet power, the power to take as well as the power to give, i.e. politicians.

Punitive is for punishment (as opposed an act that frees from harm). Don't forget that carbon is polluting the public atmosphere, damaging oceans that are the birthright of all, and taking from the future inheritance in all kinds of ways. There is no right to do this, so yes, I prefer that we take power from those who currently have it and exercise our will to to be just. Of course public subsidies for carbon energy should be eliminated, but a carbon tax or feebate will wind down the pollution, the only point of the exercise. Energy transitions take a long time so it would need to work over a decades-long timeframe, and I agree an abrupt, shut-down tax would not produce a quality state.

I also agree the inventiveness is already underway, and I've taken part in it some myself-- but yet carbon pollution continues to accelerate, adding new risk and making clear this alone is ineffective. At least a decade after really knowing the truth of the matter, we're nowhere responding to the root of the problem escaping into the atmosphere-- mainly due to the petroleum industry itself working to ensure its own existence through subterfuge and political force (not just lobbying those in power, but forcing politicians out who refuse to kneel and kiss their ring, using spending power).

Be that as it may, another approach could be to seek judgment against future damages in civil court-- say, forcing oil, coal and gas industries to set aside a fund to pay the cost of future damage. If the damage never were to play out, the oceans not rise and not destroy property, forests not burn and farms not to fail, storms not turn measurably more violent and destructive, then of course investors would keep their trillions and spend it how they prefer in a few hundred years. Does that form of justice seem more fitting to your moral frame?

Do you seriously believe excessive taxation is not punitive?

If we are to avoid economic meltdown, the rate at which fossil fuels are reduced must not exceed the rate at which alternatives become available.

Making alternative energy cost effective and readily available is the key to everything.

Technology is the solution, not punishment.

If all of the "believers" put solar panels on their roof, the demand would accelerate the transition. If enough people went to alternatives, you wouldn't need to shut down fossil fuels, they would shut themselves down... but that's not what the believers want. They want the government to fix things for them... using someone else's money. If they put it on the tab, they are robbing future generations... the very children and grandchildren we want to protect.

When you pass a law, you give up part of your freedom. Pass enough laws and you find yourself bowing down and kissing the government's ring. Is that what you want for your children and grandchildren? It is very definitely what politicians want. Politics is about money and power.

It's not punishment, and it's not excessive. It's an economic signal, an incentive focused specifically to solve a large-scale problem.

Punitive refers to a punishment, say a punitive fine in a lawsuit for 3x the actual loss, to punish blatant negligence or illegality. A carbon feebate is levied to eliminate an existing harm, not to punish-- for example, it doesn't ask petroleum producers to pony up 3x the damage due to global warming, it's much smaller than the losses incurred, solely to wind down the pollution.

Economic signal? You are playing semantic games now. It is clearly punishment in both intent and effect.

And it isn't the producers being punished, it's the consumers.

Taxing any product more than any other product is excessive/punitive taxation. Just ask the smokers. They are being robbed by their government... or is it an "economic signal"?

Bend over... here comes your economic signal.

Visionar

I believe in the constant of climate change as it has since this planet formed. I am glad the planet has warmed up from one of the coldest periods of the last ten thousand years...The Little Ice Age. It has been warmer than today's climate 9,800+ years of the last 10,000 years of the Holocene.

My read of the science of solar cycles, our sun is driven by our four gas giant planets causing inertia changes in the sun which drives it into more or less excited states. There are short, medium, long and very long cycles that drive the planet into and out of ice ages...thankfully we are living during a brief interglacial era.

Alexander a hydrologist for South Africa had to plan four dams for 500 year flood events, his research is a classic paper called "Linkages between solar activity, climate
predictability and water resource development" he sourced the Nile Rivers floods directly to Sunspot cycles.

NASA is very worried about Sunspot cycles 24 & 25, our sun and source of warmth is going very quite and has been on decline for the past five years or so...so expect a colder trend and fear a return to the another little ice age over the next 30 to 60 years.

I can not express more disappointment in a one sided story by Popular Science. It is why, after 52 years of subscribing to Scientific American, I stopped subscribing due to the lack of debate in its pages.

Note to Popular Science: try to invite the Alarmist side to debate the skeptical side unedited in print. See how many takers on the Alarmist side you will get volunteering to do so. PopSci it is your turn to forward debate and not hate.

Sorry, but this comes across as poppycock to me: "Taxing any product more than any other product is excessive/punitive taxation." Tobacco gets taxed more because it causes cancer, kills people and the public will is to reduce its consumption by making it more expensive. Nobody has the right to entice citizens into addictions that kill them, and reducing the addiction improves quality of life. Taxing it more is just, helps protect the public from unnecessary misery and heartbreak, including my kids.

George Orwell wrote about the twisting of meaning in words to lie about the reality they refer to, and re-jiggering the word "punitive" to accrete justice served into punishment being meted is in line with what worried him. To me, you worry about things that don't matter and ignore what does, IMO. I don't suppose you're from the southland, Grey? I'm just curious from a culture & beliefs perspective.

I think a carbon tax is the least expensive, least disruptive approach possible, especially if the proceeds go back to the public and those who are harmed by the pollution. The important thing is that whatever we do, it needs to actually work... it's not a game.

A little stream of consciousness in that last post... I think the brain has gone all relational this evening, not in a very sequential or consequential mood.

The moral test is harm to others, not harm to oneself. We have a right to defend ourselves, but we have no right to dictate the behavior of others, even if that behavior is harmful to them... and punitive taxation for that behavior is theft.

It is you who is twisting the definitions to serve your purposes.

I would certainly agree that it is not a game. Exactly why we should demand proof beyond reasonable doubt before taking punitive actions. You seem willing to punish all of mankind based on your belief that AGW is probably true.

Climate 'Science' as practiced today is no more a science than is creationism. Its proponents have a luddite agenda that starts with a fallacious premise which they attempt to prove with manufactured evidence. Then, they attempt to quash debate by screaming persecution. There is evidence of global warming, no doubt. There is none, however, that proves - or even strongly suggests - that human activity is responsible.
It is interesting to note that the nation with biggest output of pollutants - China - is not mentioned in their diatribes. The South Americans, who annually destroy enough forest to offset any possible carbon emission curbs, are not vilified in their propaganda...their bile is reserved for the United States and her allies.
They are of the same gang that brought us Agenda 21 and ICLEI - both instruments designed to wreak havoc on the American social structure and economy, an attempt to destabilize and move our society toward socialism.
Make no mistake, we are locked in economic, social and political combat with the PRC and its co-conspirators, and these climate buffoons are their puppets; just another weapon in their arsenal.

The moral test is quality, not notion that tobacco cartels should be protected-- and we have the right to assert it. China went through something similar when it rid itself of opium: "... so long as you do not take it (opium) yourselves, but continue to make it and tempt the people of China to buy it, you will be showing yourselves careful of your own lives, but careless of the lives of other people, indifferent in your greed for gain to the harm you do to others: such conduct is repugnant to human feelings ..." http://www.sacu.org/opium.html

On why to act on climate change, the science is as certain as it can get -- we know CO2 concentration is increasing, we know the source is fossil fuels from isotope concentrations, we know global land temperature is increasing, we know more heat records are getting set than records for cold (they should be in balance if climate isn't changing), and we know CO2 traps infrared radiation and the sun is in an off cycle. We are experiencing weather extremes that are dangerous and costly, we are observing changes in ocean chemistry that kills ocean life, and we're observing an acceleration in sea level rise that will flood areas where many people live. We know that dangerous things have happened beyond the increased violence of the atmosphere:

<>
http://tinyurl.com/7wwqqjg

The only conclusion to draw from these facts is that it's prudent to reduce the carbon pollution. There's no "luddite agenda" just common sense. For my part, I think the automobile is a marvelous thing, but that we need to rethink and rebuild the system we depend on, to move toward a state of higher quality and safety.

This was auto-deleted from the previous post, between the <> characters:

What they discovered was that there was indeed major warming at the time of all the other extinctions — and that the warming had radically changed the oceans. The currents that carry oxygen-rich cold water down to the depths shifted so that they were bringing down oxygen-poor warm water instead, and gradually the depths of the oceans became anoxic: the deep waters no longer had any oxygen.

When that happens, the sulfur bacteria that normally live in the silt (because oxygen is poison to them) come out of hiding and begin to multiply. Eventually, they rise all the way to the surface over the whole ocean, killing all the oxygen-breathing life. The ocean also starts emitting enormous amounts of lethal hydrogen sulfide gas that destroy the ozone layer and directly poison land-dwelling species. This has happened many times in the Earth’s history.

This video describes the relationship between climate and weather extremes in the continental US like what we're experiencing now -- http://youtu.be/HTAZue6ylZ8

There will no doubt be more of this in the future.

Interesting how the video uses a FOX News style of presentation but also relies on 3 expert sources to back up scientific assertions.

meerkat... clearly your definition of quality of life differs from mine. Yours is concerned with the environment while totally oblivious to human rights. In focusing on the environmental outcome, you clearly demonstrate that you believe the end justifies the means.

My primary concern is the level of freedom and diversity allowed the humans living within that environment. A life of subservience in a pristine environment is not my idea of quality of life.

These ends are not incompatible if the means of achieving them are not oppressive. To my mind, the end IS the means.

Just for example, a freedom solution might be for the believers to pool their resources, build/purchase a solar panel manufacturing plant and hand out free panels to those they feel deserving of them.

In fact, they wouldn't have to be free, just drop the price down to a point where solar energy is competitive with fossil fuels.

What's stopping you? Go for it.

To take this a step further, this would result in a good old fashioned price war, trimming fossil fuel profits while dropping energy prices, thus boosting our industrial base. From your perspective, how is this not a good thing?

The downside is the expenditure of your resources. It requires you to put your money where your mouth is... as opposed to the government based solution, where you put other people's money where your mouth is. And by other people, I am referring to the future generations who will be stuck with the tab.

BTW, tobacco cartels do not pay tobacco taxes, tobacco purchasers pay them. It is government sanctioned theft and nothing more.

meerkat... I visited the link you provided re the opium wars. Perhaps we interpret this differently, but what I am seeing is an example of the utter catastrophic failure of force and the ultimate success of persuasion (assuming we can believe any info coming from China). No doubt there was some force mixed in with the persuasion, but it was clearly the persuasion that did the trick, given that fact that force had already failed.

My solution would have been somewhat different:

Make addictive drugs prescription only. Issue refillable prescriptions to anyone who tests positive. This takes the profit out of drug dealing... and along with it, the incentive to lure people into drug use.

If all addicts have a prescription, the dealers have nobody to sell to so they are out of business. No profits = no pushers.

Since the addicts are able to support their habits at the much lower RX prices, they are far less likely to commit crimes.

From that point, it is all about persuasion and voluntary treatment.

It is much easier to persuade your kids to avoid drugs if there are no pushers seeking drug profits.

Eliminating profits is the key.

I should add that in Iran the penalty for trafficking is death by strangulation. End of problem, right? Wrong. Iran has the highest heroin addiction rate on the planet.

Better to apply force for good than to be weak/inert in the face of things you know to be wrong. Better to be brave, effective and make changes for the good.

Would that be your definition of wrong or mine?... your definition of good or mine?

More to the point... if we disagree, does might make right?

Your morality is to fight back change, including protecting immoral power from change-- that's all you advocate, to maintain existing inertia and to render opposing force inert. It's a simple and amoral recipe that's indifferent to doing the right thing.

If you were to create the best
passive heat sink.
It would have a black and ruff
exterior. With a large dense mass
for a sink. We have built them.
Its like out of an alien movie.
The planets is being Terri formed
by an advance civilization.
Its scope circles the planet many times
With a foot print that now match's
the great deserts of the world.
But unlike a desert with loose strata.
That doesn't transfer or retain heat well.
This one has a highly packed stone base.
That transfers the heat many feet
into the ground. Defeating the natural
insulation that sod and tree cover
provide.
Because of its it's color it is well capable
of capturing at least 90% of the suns energy.
This heat being relayed directly into the
ground means that any increase in heat
will take longer to bleed off.
And as demonstrated by the temperature
increases found under the Siberian permafrost.
Its not "global "as in atmospheric
its much worst, the planetoid it self is being
warmed up.
Trace gas fixes to the atmosphere is a red
herring for the public. It will not counter
the heat gain. Which is steadily increasing.
Yes the roads that we build, driveways and
Parking lots are changing the planet.
With the developing Country's now building
Roads ands driveways ..ect.
This is what has to change and should be in
some scientific analyses.
Instead scientist are being used to
promote energy agendas that meddle
with the consumers cost of living.
Giving political weight to unfairly
tax companies and the consumer.
Wake up people !!!
Take this test.
At midday on hot and sunny day.
Take off your shoes and walk in the grass.
Then walk out onto a sun drenched blacktop
driveway or road.
Thats what we are doing to the planet.

The problem is not that the atmosphere
isn't cooling quick enough.
The problem is is that we are trapping
heat more then ever.
Almost all structures now built.
Collect heat including the car.
Think how much road ,driveways, and
parking lots litter the Earth's
surface. It's all HEAT gain.
The green on this planet has shaded
mother Earth for millions of years.
And we strip the ground bare and
lay down black top and stone.

Yours is the morality of 'the end justifies the means', which is to say amorality. It is the mindset of the oppressor... just beat everyone into submission.

New technology is coming online, alternative energy is becoming more competitive and there will come a tipping point where fossil fuels will succumb to market forces... all thanks to the efforts of people who are doing it the right way.

Greystone1:

If unlawful drugs were made prescription, you can bet that the pharmaceutical companies would undersell the drug dealers by no more than 10%. While this might cut into their profits, there would be no significant decrease in the crimes of person and property by those who steal or rob to gain funds for their drugs. Not an optimum outcome, i.m.o.

Yours is the morality of inertia. Whatever is done in the past shall continue in the future, because applying force for good is bad. Your morality really doesn't distinguish good from bad, and I doubt you know the difference-- you use a good/bad cookie cutter and apply it equally to all things.

The nub of the problem with your notion of morality is that it runs counter to the Constitution of our nation, which describes how power shall be derived and how it is to be applied in practice. Americans do not have a passive constitution, it is very active and adaptable.

Yours is an exotic philosophy that would be very attractive to anyone who holds power and oppresses others now, because it demands inertia-- I may keep doing what I do, while you shall remain inert.

Happy 4th of July too. I'll leave with this as I'm sure you'll like subject as much as I like the conclusion - "The best thing about Independence Day is that it started with a declaration that epitomizes the most American ritual of all: the listing of grievances."

http://tinyurl.com/7qe6kba

You must be reading a different document. The intent of the Constitution, and the Bills of Rights in particular, is to LIMIT the power of government. You would increase that power exponentially, giving them an excuse to meddle in every aspect of our lives, everything that involves energy, which is to say EVERYTHING... all in the name of the greater good... as defined by the government.

Our country is founded upon the very concepts I espouse, i.e. natural rights, the self-evident rights to defend life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, the right to live any way you want, so long as you are not clearly and directly harming others. Your choice, not society's choice.

In a free society, people say and do things that you don't like. Get over it.

JAH... then perhaps you would agree that the problem is drug profits and the solution is the elimination of those profits?

JAH... the pharma companies can raise profit margins only if they are allowed to monopolize the product. Competition limits profit margins... and none of these drugs are patentable.

JAH... a far more likely scenario would be government taxing the drugs, keeping the prices high... in which case I agree, the crime would continue.

The tax would be promoted as a means of discouraging drug use... and meerkat would be cheering from the sidelines.

law making positions were infiltrated by corporations too long ago and should not be allowed to keep pace

if you want to solve these problems then demand new laws to ban our "public servants" from having any ties to corporations

otherwise it is climate today, pharma yesterday, water tomorrow, on and on while they laugh it up and watch our children deal with the financial destruction while their children have more power than they ever did

When you ask the individuals who will say there is no climate change. The first thing you should say is "where is your data that support your conclusions". I'm sure you will be waiting for a long long time for that data. In fact, you may not live long enough to get that answer.
I have gone to many environmental classes and find the people that are the most vocal has the least knowledge on the matter.

Simple test to ascertain climate change truth. Cut ALL government funding for research that supports man-made climate change. Cut government funding to colleges and universities with faculty that support man-made climate change.
Wait five years; recount the number of scientists that support man-made climate change.
Guess what?
Scientists are people too, and will be bribed by money. (on both sides)
Offer me a $90k/yr, five year contract to prove man-made climate change and I’ll be screaming about the dangers too.

IF climate change exists it’s the fault of the tree-huggers and environmental nut jobs. Forty years ago USA was moving down the nuclear power road, TMI occurred and rather than figure out how to improve the system they, with protests and non-science emotional appeal stopped all plants under construction and any future nuclear power plants. Great, only they were also too lazy to find a suitable substitute. No, all they can do is complain. So, people still wanted lights, heat, etc, and the power industry used the next best option, COAL. You know the rest of the story.
So excuse me if I don’t join them in the climate change frenzy. What will be the next unanticipated consequence.

First those who threaten, or harass should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I have several problems with the Climate change theory.

First is the data set that came out of University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. They mixed at least some tree ring data with "real temperatures" when the tree ring data showed a decline in temperatures. At best we can only compare real temperature reading with tree ring data for about 200 years, the decline stated in the 1960's so we have 50+ years where they don't match so at least some tree ring data is faulty, but was used anyway.

Second they didn't keep the raw data so nobody can check that data set.

Third the math published in the third assessment, and I haven't seen any new math, shows we should have a 5 degree increase in just CO2 alone, and that's if you ignore all the other green house gasses. And yes I understand thermal mass, but I was only looking at ONE of the global warming gasses not all of them, so we really should have much more than 5 degrees of increase.

Now as far as Freedom of Information requests, requests for email, a simple packet of all the information on the research would fulfill those requests, Here you go everything we have, have fun. E-mails should be released if they are taking public funds (tax money), what is there to hide? When you start hiding anything you just give the other side something to hang their hat on. See they ARE hiding something. Had ALL the data, math and assumptions been out in the open maybe we wouldn't be fighting about this.

But those are the some of the problems I have with man made global warming. I also know the planet has been warming it been warming up for a long time, the question is how much is the responsibility of man?

The fact that the topic of discussion has conveniently been switched from "global warming" to "climate change" by AGW proponents should tell you something. The hard data does not support their hypotheses, so they just changed their theories. Since the data shows a gradual global cooling trend over the past decade, "climate change" is now the boogeyman rather than "global warming". And if you question their scientific process, they denounce you as a "climate change denier". Which is a bit silly, since no one is questioning the fact that the global climate is constantly changing.

As an engineer myself, I'm always open to hearing opposing views as long as they are based on fact. But the arguments used by the AGW crowd demanding that we regulate CO2 emissions is nonsense. Mankind's annual CO2 emissions are a drop in the bucket compared to those from natural sources. Not to mention the fact that other natural GHG sources like water vapor are not even considered by AGW proponents.

GHG regulations are costing private business tens of billions of dollars each year. If these regulations are based on fraudulent science, we need to hold those parties involved in promoting that "science" financially liable for these costs.

foremancr

"...The first thing you should say is "where is your data that support your conclusions".."

If you asked that question to University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit they will tell you they tossed it out, and that they only have the homogenized data set, but we are to TRUST them that they didn't make a mistake.

Went people asked Mann for his data, he hid it and has said in court his ‘private ownership’ of such data trumps the FOIA rights of taxpayers. So he taking money from taxpayers, but we can't see what he doing.

Strange

Before I forget what happened to good science. You know where you say this is my theory, here's my data, here's my conclusions, try and poke holes in it.

Back in the day, that's the way it worked, if other people couldn't find fault then odds were the theory is probably right. But with people hiding data, losing data, who won't show their work, how can anyone check their work?

I am a skeptic and an engineer.

I understand we are in a global warming period and that CO2 contributes to the warming.

I have no idea how much the human activities or CO2 generation contributes to the overall warming - 1%? 10%? 50%? 90%? I see words like 'significant', or 'discernible' (the latter from the POPSCI article). They are near meaningless to me, because certainly 10% could be described by both of those words. Since no one puts any numbers on it, but instead puts fairly weak words on it, I think no one has any idea. Is this right?

If 10% of the warming is due to man's activities, certainly it doesn't matter what we do, because we can't affect the outcome.

It's not clear to me how much of an impact the US can have on the world wide problem, with the BRIC countries having such an impact due to their large populations and increased per capita use of fossil fuels.

I understand that controlling CO2 production will have an incredible impact on all of our lives, since most energy generation is from fossil fuels.

Thoughts?

jhachen,

The attribution of the causes of any climate change entails examining all the possible forcings that affect climate. These include changes in: the sun, volcanic activity, human aerosol emissions, cosmic rays, land use, ocean currents, continental positions, orbital variations, ice albedo and atmospheric chemistry. There have been many scientific studies that measured and compared all these factors. No factor has changed sufficiently in the last while to explain the warming we’ve seen except atmospheric chemistry and, to a lesser extent, land use changes – both are human-driven.

Attribution studies have estimated at least 98% and up to 200% of the warming is human-caused since 1950 or 1960. This means the two human-driven factors provide sufficient forcing to explain that percentage of the observed warming. Human aerosol emissions and some natural factors have countered this warming recently and the observed warming is partially masked. The net of all the forcings is, of course, 100%. The masked percentage depends very much on what time frame is examined and how short-lived aerosols are measured. Internal variability can dominate over a decade or two and attribution is not really possible for such short time frames. Some of the other factors I mentioned above apply to periods of a century and longer, a time when CO2 levels were still low.

The IPCC reports put a heavy emphasis on attribution so that’s the best place to go, though a bit dated now. Perhaps the article at the link below will help. It provides links to about 8 recently published attribution studies and summarizes the different ranges they estimated. The bottom line of all studies is IT’S US.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html

The main scientific tenets of climate change and its cause are settled otherwise all the nations of the world would not have signed on to agreements stating that action needs to be taken to prevent warming from hitting the danger level of 2°C (how often is the entire world in agreement on anything?).

I will agree with you that what’s still uncertain is who will pay for the mitigation measures needed, that’s a political issue. Specific dates for a certain degree of warming are uncertain since they depend on what we do about it. Predictions are therefore made for scenarios only.

jhachen

The IPCC used to give the percentage of man caused CO2, but once people started point out how little of the temperature increase could be attributed to man they stopped posting that number. Now the AGW crowd say 100% of the warming is caused by man, never mind we've been warming since the last ice age.

"we've been warming since the last ice age."

Fail. We've been stable or cooling ever so slightly since the Holocene Climate Optimum ended 5000 years ago. The Optimum's end is coincidentally (or perhaps not coincidental) when civilization was able to get itself going. Temperatures are now just a bit over where they peaked during the Optimum, and heading much higher.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

Psychologists refer to this as projecting-- the assumption that other people act like ones self: "Scientists are people too, and will be bribed by money."

"You must be reading a different document. The intent of the Constitution, and the Bills of Rights in particular, is to LIMIT the power of government."

Our Constitution describes how our government works. To be sure, division of government and limits are part of our Constitution, and of course it's much bigger than its limits. Our Constitution lays out the architecture by which we may govern-- to act to correct real world problems. There is no special treatment mentioned regarding the right to pollute the atmosphere, change the global climate and threaten life itself. Thus, laying down a law that winds down that damaging activity in an orderly, high-quality way is not only well within our purview, but the idea that it's not is alien to our "get it done" way of looking clear-eyed and problems and dealing forthrightly with them.

woofighter

The last a glacial age, I used the term ice age as more people know what that means, ended about 10,000 years ago, when you look at a graph of the temperatures over the last 10,000 years, you’ll see we are much warmer now. There were some ups and downs over that time frame, in fact there were times, before the industrial age, where we were warmer than we are today. There are variations in climate and that shouldn’t surprise anyone the climate is ALWAYS changing. Yes we had some dips in the global temperature, but we are in a current warming trend. The climate doesn’t go smoothly up then down, you have some warming then cooling then warming then cooling again, but overall we have warmed and continue to warm up since the last glacial age.

I noticed under the picture of Muller, it says:
Muller, a physicist, was one of the few prominent scientists skeptical of global warming. He reversed his position last year.

This is wrong. Muller was a believer in AGW as far back as 2003. Here is one of several examples:
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate."
www.technologyreview.com/news/402357/medieval-global-warming/2/

Oh, and did I mention that Muller also said Mann's work was an artifact of poor math?
"Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? "
www.technologyreview.com/news/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

Cosmic Ray, Richard Muller said that about Mann's work back in 2004 when he was still skeptical about all temperature records. He ate his words last fall and converted.

"Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/30/richard-muller-global-warming_n_1066029.html
__________________________

rwee20, I gave you a wiki link that clearly shows present temps higher than any time in the last 10,000 years (and not shown – in the last 25,000 years).

If you want something more formal, this just came out late yesterday … cooling rates over last millennium or longer (they all come from peer-reviewed literature). Bottom line: We were not warming until very recently.

Moberg et al (2006): -0.06 ºC/1000yr (0-1900)

Esper et al (2002): -0.11 ºC/1000yr (831-1900)

Hegerl et al (2007): -0.14 ºC/1000yr (558-1900, 30º-90ºN land, Chblend-dark)

Ljungqvist (2010): -0.18 ºC/1000yr (0-1900, 30º-90ºN)

Mann et al (1999): -0.19 ºC/1000yr (1000-1900)

Mann et al (2008): -0.23 ºC/1000yr (300-1900, nhcru_eiv_composite)

Edit ... higher than any time in the last 10,000 years *and cooling before this recent rise* ...

Part of the "problem" is that Mann isn't forth coming with his data or data collection methods. He has said in court that "his" data is private and can't be part of the FOIA releases.

When you look at the data and graphs you see we warm a bit, cool a bit, warm a bit, but even you admit that before the industrial age we were warmer than we are now, without all the extra CO2.

I admit that we are warming, but without being able to check the work of CRU, Mann and others how can anyone say once way or another if man is responsible for this round of warming.

So we can't check the data, in some cases the data was tossed out, in others its "private", we don't know how the data collected, we can't see the code used for the models. The math released by the IPCC doesn't come close the what we are seeing. In the few cases were we can see that data, data collection, etc. there have been flaws.

So until we can double check the work, I'll be on the fence.

Don't forget it's not up to the skeptics to PROVE AGW is wrong, a skeptics job is to try and punch holes in the theory and find mistakes. Its up those pushing the theory to say, here's the data, my data collection methods, my assumptions, try and shoot down my theory. But in AGW its backwards,its up to the skeptics to prove AGW is wrong, but the skeptics can't get the raw data, the code for the models, nor are they told what assumptions were made. Heck even CRU can't check their data set, so how do we know their data set is accurate?

Both the Hockey Stick and Mann have been independently investigated and vindicated more times than any other facet of climate science or any other climate scientist, including a congressional committee under Bush. Many (12+) subsequent temperature reconstructions by independent researchers worldwide have reached the same conclusions. Despite efforts by many to disprove his work, no one has. The “Hockey Stick” is one thing we have very high confidence in now. How much more certain can anything be?

“On 15 July [2005], Mann wrote giving his detailed response to Barton and Whitfield. He emphasised that the full data and necessary methods information was already publicly available in full accordance with National Science Foundation (NSF) requirements, so that other scientists had been able to reproduce their work. NSF policy was that computer codes "are considered the intellectual property of researchers and are not subject to disclosure", as the NSF had advised McIntyre and McKitrick in 2003, but notwithstanding these property rights, the program used to generate the original MBH98 temperature reconstructions had been made available at the Mann et al. public ftp site.” - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

I await your analysis of Mann's work using his data and his algorithms now that you know everything is there for you to verify his work. You could have got started 7 years ago, but better late than never.

The way all science works is the party that has a hypothesis provides evidence for their hypothesis. If the evidence is very powerful and the hypothesis survives all criticisms for a reasonable time, then it will eventually be adopted as a theory if complex or a law if it’s something basic and widely applicable. Nothing is ever 100% certain in science but some ideas do reach the ‘very highly probable’ level eventually. We ordinary people just call them ‘facts’ at that point, like ‘the Earth is round’ is considered a fact, though it has not been fully proven to be so.

What would you have the proponent of a theory do? Keep repeating the same experiments over and over to the end of time? The theory would still not be proved – proofs are for mathematics and philosophy, not for science. Evidence is for science. Most scientists want to move on to the next problem once something has become reasonably settled science (though there are a few cranks that get obsessed with a wrong idea now and then and spend their entire lives on it). What you ask is not reasonable – to further prove AGW. The evidence is already massive.

Once a certain level of confidence in a theory has been achieved, the onus then shifts to the skeptical opponent to refute it. This is a relatively easy task since it only needs to be done once and the whole theory falls, or at least it needs revision. With 140 years of theory behind it and 60 years of observational evidence to support it by thousands of independent researchers, AGW is well into the territory of acceptance within the scientific circles (where it is almost universally accepted). It’s up to skeptics to show the rest of us why it’s not correct now.

The situation is not unlike the common law court system. The accused murderer is innocent until ‘proven’ guilty. But if the state has thousands of witnesses that saw you do the deed, the onus shifts to you to come up with a very strong alibi, or you will certainly hang.

There's a great interview of Mann at http://tinyurl.com/7sxcrl2 describing in more detail the challenges of climate scientists. I'd recommend everyone buy his book, ‘The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines’-- it sounds fascinating and should answer the lingering questions that continue to be posted on this discussion board.

'Thus, laying down a law that winds down that damaging activity in an orderly, high-quality way is not only well within our purview, but the idea that it's not is alien to our "get it done" way of looking clear-eyed and problems and dealing forthrightly with them.'

Where in the Constitution does it say the preferred solution to every problem is government sanctioned theft and oppression? This is exactly what you are advocating... and exactly what the Constitution seeks to avoid.

If it were up to you, fossil fuel would be shut down, throwing the entire world into economic meltdown. We can't just shut it down, we need to replace it... and it will shut itself down.

As I see it, the first step is making residential solar affordable... even profitable. Why residential solar? The bottom line is: The maintenance is minimal and the fuel is free.

The secondary problem with residential solar is initial cost. The primary problem is payback period. And the solution is not subsides, but rather guaranteed retained value.

Let's say you purchase a 5Kw system for $20,000 and it will save you $1000/yr in energy costs. For purposes of illustration, let's assume the energy costs/savings hold constant.

Now let's say someone makes a guaranteed standing offer to purchase your system at any time for $20,000. It would be like putting your money in the bank and collecting 5% on it... more if energy prices rise.

Of course this isn't going to happen. The point is: The payback period is the time it takes to recoup the difference between initial cost and retained value.

If the guaranteed retained value is $0/watt, the payback period (before you start profiting from the deal) is 20 years.

If the guaranteed retained value is $1/watt, the payback period is 15 years.

If the guaranteed retained value is $2/watt, the payback period is 10 years.

If the guaranteed retained value is $3/watt, the payback period is 5 years.

If the guaranteed retained value is $4/watt, the payback period is zero years.

Which bring us to the all important questions, who will guarantee the retained value and at what level?

Who could issue a standing offer to buy used solar panels at a guaranteed price? There are several possible guarantors, but at this point I am leaning towards the power companies.

In the unlikely event that someone takes them up on the offer, what would they do with the panels? Repair them if needed, plug them in and sell the electricity they generate... OR sell them to a dealer who will sell/install used panels for less than the cost of new.

The great unknown variable in all of this is the future price of solar panels.

Thoughts, anyone?

What would be a reasonable guarantee amount?

Currently, we have a 30% tax rebate for solar. In our example, this brings the initial cost down from $20,000 to $14,000.

If the retained value were guaranteed at $1.50/watt, that would be $1.5 * 5Kw = $7500. $14,000 - $7500 = $6500. Assuming savings of $1000/year, the payback period would be 6 1/2 years... or less if energy prices rise.

As energy prices rise and solar prices drop, the federal subsidy could be reduced, keeping the payback period roughly constant.

Greystone1, I think your solar panel paybacks of 7 years and various other numbers are reasonably accurate. Your subsidies point is timely as Skeptical Science just did an interesting article on this topic, which I will draw from in this comment.

Rather than subsidize solar panels and other renewables, beyond a certain spin up period, I would rather eliminate the subsidies that we give to fossil fuels.

The IEA published fossil fuel subsidy data for developing countries recently. National Geographic's “The Great Energy Challenge” reported fossil fuel subsidy data for developed countries. Taken together, they amount to close to $500 billion in out-of-pocket government subsidies for 2010.

Add to the above costs anywhere from $5 to $68 per ton of CO2 emitted (per economic studies) for the costs of CO2 emissions, costs which are presently externalized and paid by others (i.e. you and me). This amounts to $158 billion to $2.1 trillion per year worldwide.

With today’s externalized costs included, the total subsidies we give to fossil fuels are somewhere in the ballpark of $1 trillion per year globally using a median estimate (very roughly). As climate consequences become greater, this externalized cost becomes greater, and effectively the subsidies increase.

If it turns out that mitigation by switching to renewables is still more costly than all the properly-priced-in consequences that we will endure by not switching, then we have made the bed that we will sleep in. I doubt we would use fossil fuels if we had to pay their true cost and alternatives are available since it’s against human nature to throw away their own money.

I'm sorry, but "externalized costs" sounds like political doubletalk to me. It's the sort of phrase that makes me want to hide my wallet and vote for the other guys.

If "externalized costs" troubles you then the root problem in your misunderstanding seems to be that you are an adherent to an antiquated philosophy called Libertarianism. This world view arose in times when people thought that an indefinite, even exponential, amount growth was possible for each individual without harming others; in effect they believed that resources were unlimited. We know now from simple arithmetic where exponential growth leads to on a finite planet – it leads to overshoot and collapse.

Growth of any kind simply leads to less freedom as fewer resources become available to each individual at increasing cost. You have freedom when there are two people in an apartment with two bathrooms. You have little freedom when there are 20 people sharing that apartment and the resource limit is still two bathrooms per apartment. The remaining adherents to Libertarianism, often industry leaders, are simply kicking the can down the road a bit by exploiting more difficult to acquire resources. That doesn’t change the inevitable result dictated by arithmetic. The day of reckoning will come. Climate change is chief among the consequences looming on our horizon.

When those consequences begin befall us and normal society stops functioning, the people will need to choose between anarchy and tyranny. Tyranny is the lesser evil and will win out, as it has in countless civilizations before ours.

Instead of blindly adhering to an economic philosophy that leads to tyranny and misunderstanding, adopt a realistic and sustainable world view and the pieces will begin to fall into place for you.

"I await your analysis of Mann's work using his data and his algorithms now that you know everything is there for you to verify his work. You could have got started 7 years ago, but better late than never."

So tell me when did Mann release his data, his data collection method, etc. I've never seen it, but I've seen where his has stated in court his data is private.

If you have a link I know a LOT of people would love to check out his work.

"Tyranny is the lesser evil and will win out, as it has in countless civilizations before ours."

Seriously? You are advocating tyranny in the misguided belief that the only other alternative is anarchy? Somewhere in between lies a third alternative, i.e. justice... and that's what libertarianism is about, not anarchy.

Antiquated philosophy? Are you saying justice is not fashionable? Is that the best you can do?

To continue the guaranteed retained value idea:

How likely would it be that people would actually sell their used panels to the guarantor?

In the example scenario, you can sell your panels after 6 1/2 years and break even, but why would you sell them just when they are starting to pay off?

The warranty on panels is generally 20 years, so you would want to keep them at least that long... and by that time the energy prices/savings will be such that you will want to keep them until they simply die of old age, as opposed to selling them for what will no doubt be highly inflated future dollars.

woofighter... you might want to look into "Georgist philosophy" which states that all humans are equally entitled to the Earth and all of it's natural resources (including fossil fuels), but no man is entitled to the fruits of another man's labor. This has a plausible moral premise... and it is not incompatible with libertarian philosophy.

Some may wonder why I consider residential solar to be the logical first step as opposed to massive solar projects. As the price of solar drops, it will make financial sense first to those who pay the highest rates (residential consumers), then those who pay a discounted rate (heavy commercial), then perhaps electrical utilities.

Why solar? Low maintenance, free fuel, and the noise doesn't wake the neighbors.

rwee20, There are multiple links, too many to provide here, but they are all specified in Mann’s 2005 letter to Barton. The letter is available at this link, among other places.

http://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf

Greystone1,

I do not promote tyranny. I said Libertarians promote it, or even worse anarchy. That’s what Libertarian arithmetic leads to. This is plain to anyone that has their eyes open. Start here: www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6A1FD147A45EF50D

I’m not unsympathetic to your Libertarian views since I once considered myself to be one, and I am a self-employed professional so the idea appeals to my personal benefit in some sense. However, life teaches certain lessons over time, and one lesson is that the practice and the theory of Libertarianism are quite different things. I’ve lived long enough to learn those lessons now. I’d call myself just slightly right-of-center now (or perhaps dead-center for the USA).

I suspect these life lessons come harder to citizens of the USA where history, constitution and the American Dream all work together to promote Libertarianism. The rest of the world has more of a mixed economy where government plays a greater role in various important matters like health care, auto insurance, energy production/usage, transportation regulation and control of vice distribution. And participation in supranational bodies is not regarded so dimly either since there is strength in numbers for smaller nations.

These facts mean that citizens of other nations have a more balanced and nuanced view of the role of government versus corporatism - whoever can do it better and cheaper is given the job. Infrastructure industries are not generally conducive to competition and these are the most likely candidates for government or their regulated monopolies to handle. Americans are locked into an ideology, at least in theory, and it is why their nation is slowly become less relevant on the world stage. Pity.

If you don’t like carbon taxes, then promote cap-and-trade. And if you don’t like that either, then promote the complete ban of anything that releases previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere (mainly fossil fuels). Those are pretty much your workable options. This isn’t the place to go into details of your business case for solar panels.

Well, some say defend global warmming just in case thats a good way to look at it it is like religon you believe just in case if it is good why not the worst is you live a peaceful life same with anything else you do your part what feels right others will follow and you will feel better about life but in order to be against global warming you should do it all the way don't use computers or eat out because everything contributes to it even cave men contributed to it the human race will be gone one day thats if we are a part of evaloution the earth goes through changes as we adapt too there will always be a reason no one can ansewer untill it is to late then we adapt and move on thats all

I watched the videos in the link and in fact I agree with them. How does any of that refute libertarian philosophy?

Being a retired great-grandfather, I can probably top you in life experience... but then being an American I am hard to teach, right? Your arrogance is astounding.

America is losing it's edge precisely because we have moved away from the principles of freedom. Governments evolve in the direction of tyranny and America is no exception.

My ideas on solar are an example of a solution that, if it proved workable, would be economically constructive... in contrast to your proposed solutions, which are economically destructive. You would increase energy costs, driving up the price of everything, while I would decrease energy costs by replacing fossil fuels with free fuel.

You would employ the stick, while I would offer the carrot. The stick would be my last resort, not my first resort. You do indeed advocate tyranny.

"Well, some say defend global warmming just in case..."

If millions of people installed solar panels in such a way that it was a good investment for them and global warming proved to be untrue (which seems doubtful), then no harm no foul... just millions of people getting free electricity. You don't have to believe in AGW to invest your money wisely.

I didn’t say Americans are difficult to teach. I said they are not getting the mixture of messages and economics in action that most of the world gets and this leaves them without comparisons to consider. It’s a problem all very large monoculture nations face, they are very inward looking and insular. Travel the world more. I’ve been to China three times now and nearly everywhere else, America most of all places.

No doubt America is less free in some senses than in its pioneer days, but that’s a function of moving from a simple society to a complex one where people need to cooperate more and compete less. We can’t all be independent village shopkeepers or crop farmers in competition with each other now. Today most of us must work in cooperation inside large corporations. That’s the reality, good or bad (and I don’t much like it so I’m one of the few that still works alone).

The problem is America’s government hasn’t adapted to a complex society that needs to cooperate more. This is largely because Americans insist on (or are stuck with) a Libertarian government model that really only works in practice in a resource-rich and population-poor context - where there's a mountain for each of us to pillage for its resources – the theory is good but the practice is bad in the current context.

America is losing its edge because it hasn’t moved away from its former unworkable idea of individualist freedom to a modern cooperative model of freedom, or at least it lags behind other nations in this movement. I have faith in America’s future as I’ve noticed in the past that America always does the right thing after it has tried everything else.

This comment isn’t arrogance on my part; it’s just observation of the forest from outside instead of the trees from inside.

Since we're at 11:59, I like both the carrot and the stick-- developing viable, attractive solutions for energy and transportation while throttling down the sources of greenhouse pollution. I think the latter requires system re-thinking, a group effort to replace our transportation system with a different design conceived to treat energy as precious and to produce 0 pollution. I see this as justified to protect our shared atmosphere and all that it affects from greater damage. That said, if voluntary action works I'm all for it-- the main requirement, in my view, is that it works though. Call me arrogant if you like but I have kids to protect and I will protect them without apology.

Will you protect them from oppressive government?

"... modern cooperative model of freedom..."

Would that be freedom to obey the tyrants? How is that modern? How antiquated is tyranny?

The mantra of the tyrant, throughout history has been "Do what you're told and you won't get hurt... really... honest... trust me".

Is that the modern cooperative model of freedom you are referring to?

How easy you accept, even welcome, your shackles.

So why, Greystone1, do you promote a way of thinking and (lack of) governance that leads to the very tyranny that you so despise? Do you think disentitling others to a fair share of dwindling resources or damaging their resources to your benefit can lead to anything else? Is the deprived majority just going to let the privileged minority have what remains of their common resources for long? I doubt very much they will share your sense of entitlement no matter how much effort or wealth you personally invested if you caused them suffering by your actions. This is called real politics. Think sustainably or face tyranny.

Of course, if you have no children and no real concern for humanity at large, then I can understand a “me first” or “me only” attitude. You will be gone before you can be held accountable. In which case I would say you essentially agree with me that climate change is a problem but hold the view that “it’s not MY problem”.

Apparently you missed the part about my great grandchildren... and also the part where I offered a non-oppressive solution. But then, you only see what you want to see and only validate that which fits your oppressive 'beat them into submission' worldview.

In any case, we seem to be arguing in circles and can only agree to disagree.

I did not miss the part about your great grandchildren. My comment was tailored to that fact but you have failed to absorb its relevance because you think you can have both a future and cheap fossil fuels.

Yes, your non-oppressive solution will work. Just like stopping people that drive at the speed limit and giving them gift certificates will work, instead of handing out fines to those that actually speed over the limit. Not!

Global warming is an economic problem and an economic solution is needed. Fossil fuel prices need to reflect their true costs and they don’t now.

"Will you protect them from oppressive government?"

The Supreme Court decided corporations are people and handed corporate decision-makers thousands of votes to my 1, through their ability to spend freely on elections. With this ruling, all that Abe Lincoln spoke about at Gettysburg, about government of the people, by the people and for the people fell to the wayside and the idea perished, simply by defining a person differently. Our government fell with Citizens United, like a quiet coup, and I do advocate for a constitutional amendment to undo it.

The climate is a physical threat, however-- a direct threat to life and to quality of life at enormous scale. Both are like defending against an attack-- the climate being a physical attack, like a charging bear, that demands standing up and getting between the bear and the kids. I'll grant you, it's absurd that modern life forces such dilemmas on a fellow at one time-- and I suspect it's going to get much worse.

Professor Bartlett's lecture reminds me of Chris Martenson's Crash Course - fascinating thinking. http://youtu.be/EXd66gP53fk

The great things about Global "Heating" as I like to call it is that deny it or not pray about it or not, we are all on this boat called Earth and in the end everyone is going to get a taste of it. The ones who follow the science will deal with it long before it starts to hurt them, the ones that don't will wait till the last minute and then some, its all good in my book.

So enjoy the retarded believes its all magic thinking and some deity ROFMAO is going to just come and A. whisk you away B. blow on the planet and all the gasses will just magically go away. Which ever way you think this is going to play out in the next couple of decades.

Then we will get a nasty wakeup call and like everything humans do we will have to scramble to fix the problem.

I for one am not worried there are dedicated people who are making some very cool and tech advance technology now and into the future. So when society finally freaks out we can implement them and maybe save our sorry ass. To bad deniers can't be made to live in the dead zones but I can dream can't I.

"My comment was tailored to that fact but you have failed to absorb its relevance because you think you can have both a future and cheap fossil fuels."

No... I think we can have both a future and free solar fuel. Fossil fuels cannot compete with free. Every solar panel installed replaces/eliminates fossil fuel consumption.

woofighter

Sorry but most of the links are dead, I have checked them all yet. And the links that did work didn’t show any real data, nor how it was collected, nor did it show anything that would allow someone to check the work. I will quote from the link “…Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc….”

So basically we’re told trust me. If AGW is as bad as claimed, then it is criminal NOT to release everything. It not that hard to release everything, heck I’ve shipped gigabytes of data, programs, code for the programs, etc so I know it can be done. Again if is as bad as it’s claimed they should be shipping it out to everyone, not hiding it.

rwee20, you are 7 seven years late to the party so it’s not surprising that some links have moved around on something as dynamic as the internet. Make Google your friend and I’m sure you find them somewhere. Search on the last part of the link name.

Maybe here www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
or here: www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/supplements/MultiproxyMeans07/

Your quote “… under no obligation to provide you with any additional data …” is from a 2003 letter sent to Steve McIntyre from the director of the National Science Foundation. While the director’s claim is true, Mann did provide everything, as he very clearly says in his 2005 letter here: “all of our data and methodologies have been fully disclosed and are available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection”. Mann goes on to say “As a result of our willingness to share our research with others, an independent team of scientists has used the research data my colleagues and I have made public to replicate our research and confirm the reliability of our findings.”

Even if you do check all his work, it is unlikely that you will find any flaw that affects his conclusions since McIntyre has not been able to do this after 7 years of trying. If Mann was up to something nefarious you would not find it anyway without making your own paleoclimate measurements. If you had the skills to do that you would not be here asking for links.

In science, it is far more important that others can reach the same conclusions using their own methods and data sources. If they just replicate the original work, they could be replicating the same mistakes or looking at the same bad data. Many other scientists have replicated Mann's results independently.

One study is by Ammann and Wahl here:
thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CWahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
Their data and code is available at:
www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/WA_supplement.html
(includes a link to a tar file of all source-code and data).

I’m aware of at least 12 independent studies that have replicated Mann’s work at this point. This makes Mann the most vindicated climate scientist on the planet. And his work isn’t even essential to the whole issue of global warming; it’s just a picture of what happened over the last millennium or so and it happens to make a handy icon showing the unusualness of recent changes.

Kiljoy, I've proposed a few tech advances myself to companies that asked for ideas, and I'll be damned if they're not developing technologies that would enable a few. Big, highly capable companies, economically attractive concepts that would change how things currently work. A lot of people, hundreds of thousands, put in their two bits and I think in aggregate produced a lot of value from the exercises.

As for deniers, denial is a common, immature psychological response to an unacceptable reality, described nicely here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

Greystone1: “I think we can have both a future and free solar fuel.”

I hope you are correct but the preponderance of the evidence is against such an outcome – all energy costs something and renewables are still a bit more costly than burning fossil fuels, and often less convenient. People aren’t going to switch quickly and perhaps not at all if the costs remain where they are and no corrective economic signal is applied by governments. All the waiting caused by the delay-and-pray crowd has now left us with very little time to make the big switch. I hope you are correct but it’s a long odds risk to take when you are betting against your great grandchildren’s future if you lose.

"All the waiting caused by the delay-and-pray crowd has now left us with very little time to make the big switch."

That's because you keep threatening to hit them with the big stick. Nobody wants to get hit with the stick. The stick generates opposition. Everybody loves the carrot. The carrot generates no opposition.

Make solar a solid, affordable, profitable investment and all of the panel manufacturers in the world won't be able to keep up with the demand.

I’m quite sure if solar manufacturers could make solar into a solid, affordable, profitable investment, they would do so – they want the business. This may come to pass eventually, but what’s your Plan B if it doesn’t happen soon enough? Anarchy or tyranny?

Plan B is better carrots. Plan Z is the stick.

Your plan A is to bludgeon people... and then you wonder why there is so much opposition, why it is taking so very long to get people to voluntarily take their beating. Your Plan A is counter productive.

I don’t object to your Plan A. It’s just that it isn’t working fast enough since CO2 concentrations are generally still increasing at an exponential rate. Don’t forget that population growth 'targets' are to add another equivalent of China and India to the world in the next 40 years (barring an all-out global thermonuclear war as nations start competing for limited resources in a hotter world).

What will happen to CO2 concentrations with China and India moving towards a middle class emissions level, with another China and India added into the mix, and the rest of us still generously using fossil fuels while the main CO2 sink, the ocean, is saturating?

I don’t think we can afford your Plan B’s bigger carrot (massive subsidies) without a corresponding bigger stick (massive carbon taxes), the latter of which you don’t want. You need to appreciate the scale of this problem – virtually all human CO2 emissions need to cease over the coming decades.

A buy back guarantee doesn't take massive subsidies. What's in it for the guarantor? For starters, market share in a fast growing market.

What will it cost them? Nobody in their right mind is going to sell back the system during the warranty period, which for solar is 20-25 years and probably beyond the warranty period if it's still making money for them.

So the guarantor gets to buy back the system far in the future when it finally dies, in what will no doubt be highly inflated dollars (pocket change?), refurbish and sell them for 1/2 the price of new, which by then will no doubt be much higher.

Greystone1, I had another closer read of your guaranteed retained value scheme. I don’t see how it would convince me to purchase a $20,000 solar system for my home. If it won’t convince me with my climate concerns, then it won’t convince many ordinary people. The problem for me is the upfront capital cost and the debt service charges that I would incur, which would take funds away from my other endeavors. If I had unlimited funds, I would do it, but (alas) I don’t. If I had a low credit rating I wouldn’t even be able to consider your proposal. That doesn’t leave too many takers.

I already know that I will make a profit on a solar system installed on my home since my jurisdiction guarantees me $0.55 / kWh for 20 years if I install a solar system (a FIT program). [It was $0.80 until last year.] This generous FIT program has worked wonders but it still has had a very small number of takers out of the total population, way too few to make any CO2 difference yet anyway. Just as well, since there are very few qualified companies able to install the systems (but a lot of fly-by-night operators who say they can). Solar systems are only going to make serious inroads if/when home builders are forced to put them on every new home as part of the building code and they are properly inspected, or when the system setup costs drop to near zero. We can’t wait for the level of penetration to naturally reach the point of helping with climate. It really needs a major push.

The guarantee you propose would be instead of the FIT program (since you don’t like subsidies or taxes), which means it won’t really provide any further incentive, and in fact less incentive, so I’d expect it would have even fewer takers. I say less because, while your program would guarantee that I can’t lose, I might still only break even. With the FIT program I’m guaranteed a healthy profit. I’m still not really keen on spending money on a solar system even if there’s a healthy profit for me in the future. Given the maximum kWh that I could generate using my roof area, the profits are really small potatoes to me even if the ROI is very good. There are alternative non-energy investments that appeal to me more right now.

Another lesser matter is the salvage value is very low for a first solar system since much of the cost of the first system would be sunk into the roof installation effort and rewiring within my home. If you are the guarantor and your guarantee is really for full cost or any cost greater than the true scrap value, I’d be inclined to sell my solar system to you the day after I had it installed and then immediately install another new system more cheaply the second time around (or perhaps even my old scrap system that I bought back from you at the much lower true scrap cost). I’m not saying that everyone will do this but enough people might to make it such that the guarantor is effectively giving a huge price subsidy to those who install solar systems. I’m sure adding some draconian terms to your deal could prevent this abuse but then you will scare off some small number of the legitimate takers too and that’s not what we want.

We are left with either bigger carrots or bigger sticks.

As I understand it, the FIT programs are designed to benefit larger scale projects where the entire output is sold to the grid. This does little or nothing for the residential system where most or even all of the output is consumed by the residence. It does nothing to reduce the payback period... which is the major drawback.

"I’d be inclined to sell my solar system to you the day after I had it installed..."

At a substantial loss to you. How does that make sense?

Let's consider a strategy that doesn't require government approval:

The manufacturer of a self-contained plug in system (easily uninstalled) offers to buy back the system for a fixed amount, thus drastically reducing the payback period.

For reasons previously stated, it is highly unlikely that he will be buying back the system until it dies of old age, at which time he will buy it back with highly inflated dollars... and in the meantime he grabs market share.

If at any time he feels he might lose on the deal (deflation?), which is highly unlikely, he can discontinue the guaranteed model, thus limiting his losses.

If the guarantor wanted to really cover his butt, he could base the buy back amount on measured output, rather than nominal output. That way he isn't going to be buying dead systems.

There is a FIT program for commercial operators in my jurisdiction but it is nowhere near as generous. The generous program is limited to non-commercial scale rooftop systems. Given all the multiple small facets on my complex roof I think it will cost me more than usual to install a solar system and my payback will therefore be longer. This is perhaps why not one home in my area of 5000 similarly styled homes has a solar system yet. I only know of one estate home nearby that has a 40 X 60 foot ground-mounted system that rotates through the day to face the sun. It looks to be a $100,000 system. I think it pre-dates FIT.

Perhaps I don’t understand your guarantee scheme properly. If it ensures that the guarantor will buy my solar system back from me at any time for my full cost or at least my full cost less any revenue earned or expenses saved to that point (likely none), then your scheme is an incentive since it prevents me from incurring ongoing losses should my solar system not achieve grid parity. In this case, grid parity can only be achieved by electrical prices increasing to a level higher than my system’s generating cost, which is effectively locked in when I buy the system. That said, if this is your scheme, it is still less of an incentive scheme than my local FIT program which hasn’t got the residential conversion job done yet either. And I could well scam it in the way I described earlier. Furthermore, the guarantor would have to be a government or a monopoly utility otherwise I’d put no faith in the guarantor being around in the future to make good on the guarantee.

If your scheme only allows me to sell my solar system back to the guarantor at some loss to me or at nearly the true scrap value of the system at some future date, then it is no incentive at all because I’m the one risking whether grid rates will eventually be higher than my locked in generating cost and I can’t limit those daily losses. I’m sure grid parity will happen eventually but not for those who lock in at the higher costs of present-day solar systems. Electricity rates, absent carbon taxes, are not at all likely to climb in real terms to match present day solar energy costs; rather solar energy costs will fall to grid parity in a decade or so. The FIT program would only work for me because I would be selling my generated electricity to the grid at 55 cents/kWh and buying it back from them at 12 cents on peak, or 6.5 cents off peak (we also have a TOU smart meter system). The difference is my profit (it’s taxable).

I suspect what your scheme does is it somewhat reduces my losses, at best, if my solar system don’t achieve grid parity over its useful life. Grid rates are what the utility company pays to private generators of electricity. In my area, grid rates average around 11 cents a kWh and my locked in cost should be about 15 cents a kWh according to solar system installers that I’ve consulted. This means I would be losing money from day one without FIT. Likely, if the situation came to the point where it made sense for me to exercise the buyback guarantee, it would make sense to a great many solar system owners to do the same thing. The guarantor would be in for huge losses and the returned systems would have no value either.

Economic reality is we need either bigger carrots or bigger sticks.

"Perhaps I don’t understand your guarantee scheme properly."

Apparently, you do not understand it at all, because the rest of your post is totally irrelevant to the guarantee scheme.

The guarantor would not buy back your system at the full cost. He would offer an amount that is beneficial to both him and you. High enough to promote solar sales by reducing the payback period and yet low enough to cover his potential liability. The optimum amount for the buyback offer is yet to be determined. I put example numbers in there just to illustrate how it works.

Grid parity? Generating costs? It's solar. The fuel is free. The generating cost is zero.

This is going to be asking a lot, but I ask both sides to convince me of the truth. I am a proponent of man-made climate change/global warming, but I understand Earth cycles and solar activity do have an effect. I grew up in Alaska, and I know better than some the effects of clouds on temperature.

But I issue this challenge. I want someone from BOTH SIDES of the argument to put forth evidence IN THEIR OWN WORDS, no links allowed except for visual aide.

I would like to ask that this be kept in a CIVIL fashion, and use legitimate websites and include a bibliography.

I gave you two scenarios. One guarantees me something and one guarantees me nothing. But you say your scheme is neither. I can only conclude that it is apparently an economic fiction that you are unable to explain. What use is a guarantor that offers a price beneficial to both parties? That’s essentially market price and can be negotiated at any time for anything of value. Perhaps it’s more of a futures market in your scheme. Thanks but no thanks.

“The generating cost is zero.” This might be the fallacy behind your scheme. Business endeavors have a fixed cost (overhead that can’t be avoided) and variable cost (that is a function of operations). For solar panels, wind turbines, hydro dams, nuclear reactors and most non-combustion sources of energy, the variable cost is very close to zero. Unfortunately, the fixed cost component tends to be much higher for some of these. The full cost is the fixed cost amortized over the lifetime expected units of output of the asset + the variable cost per unit of output, or about 15 cents a kWh for a rooftop solar system (depending on climate and latitude).

Variability of the input energy source is also an important factor for solar and wind and usually leads to either a higher fixed cost or some variable costs to store the output energy until it’s needed. This becomes a very important cost if solar systems provide any more than ~20% of total electrical supply.

Let me know if you come up with a workable idea.

@Woofighter, why do you think that these climate scientists are attacked so much? I am not a communist, but I am not a supreme capitalist either. We know that combustion energy is cheaper, just like killing someone is easier than arguing with them. The businesses are heckling these scientists so that they do not have to change with the tides. They spend money that they could use "greening themselves up" to attack the men and women who are reporting the facts as they know them. Can they be wrong? Of course, that is why we have a scientific method, so that we can figure out where we screwed up. But to actively HUNT for the gaps in knowledge is simply sniping. We don't know some things because they haven't happened before, so how can we fill the gap when there is no data?

"The full cost is the fixed cost amortized over the lifetime expected units of output of the asset + the variable cost per unit of output, or about 15 cents a kWh for a rooftop solar system (depending on climate and latitude)."

So... if I understand correctly, the 15 cents/Kwh is arrived at by dividing the initial cost plus expected maintenance by the expected Kwh produced over the 20 year warranty period. And it is assumed that the system then has zero resale value. Does that sound about right?

TeslasDisciple, yes you are asking a lot. It’s a big topic that can’t be adequately addressed in blog comments. And it has already been addressed in many places. Start here:

National Climatic Data Center
Global Climate Change Indicators

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

The scientists are attacked because the actual science is very solid now. The attackers can’t find any opposing scientists that can make a coherent argument against the science that they don’t like. So they are left with only one option – destroy the credibility of the messenger instead (used in political wars all the time). In doing so, they create hatred among their internet followers, many of whom think violence is justified to stop the devil’s scientists. Read “Merchants of Doubt”.

Combustion energy is only cheaper if you ignore subsidies and externalities.

Not every detail of climate is known and I’m sure scientists are wrong about some of the details they think they know (it’s more likely they underestimate the fury of nature than the other way though, they very conservative people usually, often older white men).

Climate science is like a jigsaw puzzle with enough pieces in place now that the bigger picture is clear. It is the missing pieces that scientists want to fill in (cloud effects, precise climate sensitivity, feedbacks) or the edges of the picture that they want to expand (climate tipping points, bifurcation).

For ordinary people that don't care, I think Margaret Thatcher expressed both the problem and solution well:

"The danger of global warming is yet unseen but real enough for us to make some sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations."

What if it had a resale value? Wouldn't that completely alter the formula?

Greystone1, almost correct. Not over the 20 year warranty period, but over the expected lifetime output, say 25 or 30 years. I think the electrical output of solar panels diminishes over many years, to a point where they just aren't worth using and they need to be changed. I don't believe they can be refurbished, just replaced. There might be some residual metal or mineral scrap value at the end but not much. Removal will likely cost more than the residual value of the panels then. There’s one variable cost I forgot to mention, your home insurance might increase a little.

"What use is a guarantor that offers a price beneficial to both parties? That’s essentially market price and can be negotiated at any time for anything of value."

It isn't negotiated at the time of resale, it is guaranteed before the initial purchase.

I've heard estimates that a solar panel loses 1% of it's capacity per year. If this is the case, after 30 years the panel could still output 70% of it's original capacity.

3.11 SALVAGE VALUE [of solar panel systems]

“The value of the components at the end of 25 or 30 years (the standard module warranty period) is similar to other rapidly advancing technologies which have reached the end of their warranty period, and although the PV system may continue to produce energy at a reduced rate for 40+ years (a bonus for the system owner at that time), electrical codes, efficiencies and manufacturing practices will have changed over the years. These factors combined with an expired warranty could render the technology obsolete. Currently there is no existing, reliable secondary market in place that can assign a value to mass produced 25+ year old modules and inverters. In its absence, a scrap value of the components (metals) could be used. Since a present value calculation over 25 or 30 years must also be used against the scrap value, the end result adds very little to the valuation and therefore is not included in the [economic] model.”

Found at http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/PV_Value_v1.0_user_manual.pdf

Also see ..

http://solarcellcentral.com/cost_page.html

If the guaranteed buy back amount exceeded the true resale value, it would in fact be a subsidy. Not an upfront subsidy paid in today's dollars, but a future subsidy paid in future dollars.

The panel manufacturers would be in a better position to estimate the true resale value in the future... in future dollars.

From your solarcellcentral link:

"PV systems can last maybe up to a 100 years! There is only a small degradation of performance - about a half of one percent per year. So a PV system after 50 years will still produce electricity at 75% of its original performance. 50 years is perhaps a better time frame over which to evaluate the cost of this type of asset."

Why would we assume it has no resale value after only 25-30 years, if it can still generate 85% of it's original output and could last as long as 100 years?

Just keep in mind that value of any commercial asset is the ‘present value’ of its expected income stream. I agree that a solar panel should keep producing some electricity 100 years later (it should, in theory, wink out after 140 years). You would have to replace an expensive component called an inverter multiple times but let’s skip that complication.

The way ‘present value’ works, more weight is given to earlier income in the stream than to later income (which is discounted at some rate). And, since the solar panels are diminishing in electrical output with age, the years far into the future won’t contribute as much income to the stream. These two points combine to make the value of the panels almost entirely dependent on their income stream over the first 25 years. And they would certainly be worthless by 40 years, if solar panel technology even makes sense then (we might have nuclear fusion and free electricity in 2050, who knows?).

Electricity rates are expected to increase 4% per year, which means the savings increase 4% per year, which will more than compensate for panel degradation.

The ROI gets better and better over the years/decades.

Let's do it your way: LCOE = Total 25 year cost divided by total output. According to the link the total output for the 5Kw system is 8050Kwh.

Let's say you have purchased a 5Kw system for $14000 after incentives. You will need to replace the inverter during that 25 years at a cost of $2000, for a total of $16000.

The guarantor (whoever that may be) has a standing offer to buy solar systems at $1.75 per measured output watt ($8750 when the system is new). Over the years the output degrades at .5% per year, so the guaranteed value of the system after 25 Years is roughly $8000. $16000-$8000=$8000 (total 25 year cost).

Divide total 25 year cost by total output: $8000/8050=9.9 cents per Kwh... well below grid parity and in fact cheaper than advanced nuclear.

Would you sell the system to the guarantor after 25 years for $8000? No... you would sell it to your neighbor for $9000. He would run it for another 25 years and get an even better ROI than you did... or you could keep it another 25 years.

Greystone1,

The PDF I pointed you to earlier provides a link to a spreadsheet that calculates everything accurately (see the 2nd link on page 11). It was pre-set with realistic values for a 2 kilowatt solar PV system. The spreadsheet provides 3 scenarios: low, medium and high discount rates. The discount rate is effectively what they think electrical rates will go up by, or the price inflation affecting your profit stream applied in reverse. Their medium (or average) scenario uses a 4.67% annual discount rate.

Their medium scenario, when I adjusted it to a 5 kilowatt solar system, says it will generate a profit stream (revenue less expenses) of $794 on 7943 kWh in the first year and just $257 on 6985 kWh in year 25. The present value of this entire 25-year profit stream is $10593. Although the kWh output is dropping at a rate of 0.5% annually (the ‘module degradation rate’ they used), the discounted value of money is reducing your profits in present value terms much more quickly.

They stop the analysis at 25 years (or optionally 30 years) because they feel that any solar panel system would have no real value beyond that point due to technological change (think, what is the value of a 25-year old computer today even if it works fine?). However, if I extrapolate their numbers into the far future (this assumes we won’t advance technologically, let’s call it the Mad Max extension after the movie), then it might be possible to extract another $3500 or so in present value from the profit stream but an inverter replacement or two would probably wipe out most of that gain (it tells me that adding 5 more years adds only $1120 of present value when the first 5 years contributed $3625, so you get the idea).

A typical residential rooftop system is about 4 kilowatts but I went with your 5 kilowatts system above. If that system cost you $16000, as you suggest, then you have only paid for 60% of its cost by year 25 without FIT or some other subsidy. And then only paid for a bit more of it in another 25 years with the Mad Max extension. The different discount rate scenarios they suggest don’t change the results much, ±$900.

Their kWh output numbers agree with my prior understanding of solar panels. And they use 10 cents/kWh as the current starting electrical rate. My local peak daytime consumer rate is 11.7 cents/kWh but I think 10 cents is about the rate that my utility buys electricity from producers on average now. Perhaps you can find a flaw in their calculations. If not, your guarantors are going to bailing on their commitments.

Again, solar PV works in my jurisdiction because I would get 55 cents/kWh from the utility under my government’s “microFIT” program. If I plug 55 cents into their spreadsheet, keeping everything else the same, it tells me the present value of that same 5 kilowatt $16000 solar system is now $64,500 and it pays for itself in year 5 (hmmm, maybe I should get one). My understanding is a 4 kilowatt system installed in my area would cost me about $18000, not $16000 for a 5 kilowatt system as you suggested, but costs might be lower in the USA.

Trial and error with the spreadsheet suggests you would need to receive a rate of 15 cents/kWh from your utility to pay off the system in 25 years (starting now, not later, this makes a big difference). This makes sense since I’ve been told that present day solar panels produce output at this cost. What do you pay for electricity in your area?

Have fun with the spreadsheet.

I think you are confusing the electricity seller with the electricity buyer. We are not talking about a profit stream, we are talking about a savings stream. When the electricity rate goes up the savings go up, not down.

794/7943 = 10 cents per kWh
257/6985 = 3.7 cents per kWh

Apparently your power company drastically reduced it's rates.

"The discount rate is effectively what they think electrical rates will go up by, or the price inflation affecting your profit stream applied in reverse."

Try reversing the reverse.

And your starting rate should be 11.7 cents, not 10 cents.

7943 * .117 = $929 not $794

Who cares what the power company pays for electricity? What matters is... you avoided paying them 11.7 cents/kWh, for a savings to you of $929.

I'm in the Tampa Bay area. Our top rate is 13 cents/kWh.

Hello guys,

I didn't read all the comments.

I just wanted to tell how frightening this article is from an european point of vue.
In our countries, man-made global warming is widely accepted for something like ten years. Politicians stopped denying it a while ago too (apart some really polemical ones... but they just aren't listen to).

Thus, hearing that Senator Inhofe telling his crap about that "Greatest Hoax" sounds just insane to me. Down here, everybody heard about low coral atol being overflooded. I've seen "glaciers" (Google trad seems to say it's the actual word in english) in the Alps by my own eyes. I can tell their states are just rueful. They look like left-overs of themselves.

I can't understand how people can deny global warming: if they don't want to think rationally at scientific evidences, then they should just open their eyes. There are so much evidence all around the world.

All this distrust of science is really scary. Your behavior affects climate. Mine too. We know how this will end if we keep going this way. We are bound to work as a team but for some economical reasons, some fat porcs who just want more money, a significant part of your people, being manipulated as puppets, just deny the obvious truth.

I can't get it... people sending death threats over other people's children? WTF, this is insane! Do they realize what they are up to? These are terrorist methods. I'm shocked. What do you think of it?

PS: Sorry for my "english", i'm actually French :)
PPS: I've understood minds are changing and I know that people sending death threats are (dumb) extremists. But again, we'd never see things like that down here.

You are confused, Greystone1. You can’t save money using a solar PV system by avoiding buying electricity from the utility at their retail rate. Well, perhaps you could if you run every light in your house during the day, you leave the fridge door open all day and turn A/C to its maximum while running electric heaters to compensate at the same time. Otherwise you would be dumping most of your generated output every day.

In practice, you must sell your generated electricity into the grid at their supplier rates when your system is generating its peak output midday on sunny days, and buy it back at night and on cloudy days. Or you must find a way to store what you generate until you need it (still very expensive at present).

woofighter... sorry, but that's not how it works. When you generate excess your meter runs backwards. When you use more than you generate, the meter runs forwards. In effect, they are storing it for you.

And you have your discount rate showing a drop in energy rates instead of a rise in energy rates. You have it working backwards.

"The discount rate is effectively what they think electrical rates will go up by, or the price inflation affecting your profit stream applied in reverse."

Note the phrases "rates will go up" and "price inflation". How can the rates go up and down at the same time? Inflate and deflate at the same time? Rise at a rate of 4.67% and drop from 10 cents to 3.7 cents? It is impossible.

I don't know how this can be explained any clearer. You have reversed the discount rate.

Thank you @woofighter, that was my exact point!

The businesses do not want to pay extra costs of greening up, so they try to discredit the science... blah blah blah, just like you said.

And of course climate scientists are wrong. They don't have all the data, so they must have screwed up somewhere. And haven't we ALWAYS underestimated Mother Nature?

And your comment on how climate science is like a puzzle, you are wrong and right at the same time. How are you wrong? You forgot the mosaic that is science as a whole. This is why in the 60's scientists were usually under investigation, science ignores national boundaries.

And nice touch with the Margaret Thatcher quote, classy.

At a discount rate of 4.65%, your electrical rate will rise from 11.7 cents/kWh to about 35 cents/kWh over 25 years.

Year 1, 7943 * .117 = $929
Year 25, 6985 * .35 = $2445

Using your initial cost of $18000, your first year ROI is 5.2%, in year 25 your ROI is 13.6%... and it will keep getting better over the next 25 years, even though the output capacity is dropping.

Still think a 25 year old system has no value? It is a money machine.

Greystone1,

The reversing meter just appears to me to be the same thing as buying power from the utility and selling it back to them as I suggested you must do. It’s just a different means of accounting for the power exchange instead of using final dollars, a form of bartering. It makes no practical difference.

Your retail electrical rate may well rise enough to generate a revenue of $2445 on 6985 kWh of output in year 25 if you start out at 11.7 cents/kWh now but those will be highly inflated dollars, not worth the same as today’s dollars. The purpose of a discount rate is to restate future dollars in today’s dollars. Otherwise you are comparing Florida oranges to New York apples. The spreadsheet says today’s present value of your $2445 is $301. Your year 25 ROI is $301/$18000 = 1.67%, not 13.6%. Both $301 and $18000 need to be stated in terms of the same year to be divisible. This is basic finance.

The discount rate is essentially telling you that you could have invested the same funds in a fixed rate 25-year bond and earned 4.65% in year 25 (and every other year) instead of 1.67% in year 25. With the solar system, you want to make most of your money on the greater ROI in the earlier years, but you can’t make enough without a subsidy to stay above 4.65% in year 25 if you start out at 11.7 cents/kWh. Or imagine you borrowed the $18000 at 4.65% (an interest only loan). In year 25 you would be paying more interest than your solar system would be earning for you. That tells you it’s past time to shut down the endeavor and return the borrowed money (you will have accumulated $12629 from solar earnings by then but you will need to come up with the other $5371 from somewhere else to pay off the loan).

At year 50:

$1.04/kWh * 6027 = $6268

ROI = 35%

Once you have all dollars on the same basis, your ROI is …

($Present Value – $Invested) / $Invested

($13939 – $18000) / $18000 = –23%

You lose about 1% a year on average but you actually make some profit in the early years and less profit in the later years (dropping from 5.2% to 1.7%) and then you take a $5371 write-off at the end to put you into an overall loss position.

If you could keep the system running for 40 years without additional cost, then you would have no write-off and the $Present Value would be $18000. Your ROI would be 0%.

If you could keep the system running for 100 years without additional cost, then you would have no write-off and the $Present Value might be $20000. Your ROI would be 11%. Good luck on this outcome with panels that have a 25 year warrantee.

There’s little point in discussing this further if you don’t accept the basic rules of finance used by everyone in industry and commerce.

If it can generate $2445 in future dollars ($301 in today's dollars), then it should have a resale value of at least $8000 in future dollars ($985 in today's dollars), don't you think?

All of this assumes the growth in electrical rates is identical to the inflation rate. If electrical rates increase faster than inflation, it's an entirely different story.

Hmmm... If the electrical rates rise to match inflation, then:

Year 25, 6985 * .117 = $817.

Somehow, you have electrical rates rising slower than inflation.

Something is very wrong with the math here.

If we assume the rise in electrical rates matches inflation, then we can cut through the confusion and and use today's electrical rates along with today's dollars.

Then it is all about panel degradation.

ROI reduces with panel output.

Estimating electricity rates over the very long term is problematic.

The US Dept. of Energy says that the consumer price index in USA (cumulative inflation) increased 82% from 1985 to 2005. It also says electric utility rates have increased 27% during this time. In effect, electricity rates were falling in real terms over that 20 year period, rising at a rate lower than the general inflation rate. However, electricity costs in the US have been rising about 4% per year for the past ten years when the inflation was just 1.83%.

The table below is one utility’s official 2011 Long Term Rate Forecast for electricity rates (it is intended to be indicative only).

Table 2: Estimated Real Changes in Electrical Rates

Forecast 2011 5.5%
Forecast 2012 11.4%
Forecast 2013 3.5%
Forecast 2014 6.0%
Forecast 2015 5.5%
Forecast 2016 5.4%
Forecast 2017 3.4%
Forecast 2018 1.5%
Forecast 2019 2.3%
Forecast 2020 2.8%
Forecast 2021- 2030 0.9%

Note that these are real rate increases. The nominal rate for each year would be around 2.1 per cent higher, based on the forecast of inflation (i.e. with inflation, add 2.1% to the numbers above). That utility’s jurisdiction has a carbon tax in place that your scheme is intended to prevent. But you really need a carbon tax to make your solar system pay for itself within its reasonable life expectancy.

Greystone1: "If it can generate $2445 in future dollars ($301 in today's dollars), then it should have a resale value of at least $8000 in future dollars ($985 in today's dollars), don't you think?"

This would be true under a Mad Max future where society has not advanced technologically. Again I ask, what is the value of a 25-year old computer today even if it still works exactly to 1987 specifications?

The computer comparison doesn't apply. The computer doesn't generate savings.

Let's say you have an opportunity today to buy a 25 year old solar system. When new it's output was 5kWh. It is now capable of producing 4.5kWh. What is it worth to you today?

Oops... make that "kW", not "kWh".

Would you be willing to pay $1.75/Watt, i.e. $7875 for it?

Perhaps more to the point, how much did the system cost the original owner 25 years ago in today's dollars?

And yes... Given the drastic drop in solar prices, I realize this will serve to prove your point, not mine. Truth is what it is, not what I want it to be.

This might in fact give us a more realistic model. Look at a solar system purchased in 1987 and see how it all worked out, factoring in drastic technological advances... in 1987 dollars. Give it a 30% incentive at purchase to make it even... and try to estimate today's resale value... in 1987 dollars.

I've heard the argument as well that other factors such as volcano eruptions send more emissions off than we ever could by polluting and that humans cannot impact climate change anywhere near how mother nature can. I tend to agree with this with some limitations. At 7 billion people on earth, this is probably true. As population continues to increase, the scales may balance. More and more countries are developing. If we continue using the same technology in places like China, India and Brazil, as their industries explode, so will our influence on climate change. There are still critical points that need to be addressed. We will run out of oil at some point. Prices on commodities will continue to spiral out of control. The rich will get richer.

CO2 emissions from volcanic sources have been well studied. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

The rare supervolcano on the edge of a shallow sea that’s rich in carbon sediments with its oceanic plate being subducted under the volcano might conceivably be able to match annual anthropogenic sources. But this would be a one-off and rare event compared to ongoing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The last time it is known to have happened was when India was close to colliding with Asia.

Most volcanos just emit large amounts of sulfate aerosols and gases other than CO2. If the explosive power of a volcano’s eruption is very strong, the aerosols can be blasted into the stratosphere where they will hang around for months or a year (due to the lack of rain in the stratosphere). The lingering aerosols will cool the climate until they eventually settle out.

This provides excellent observations, as good an article as POPSCI one - http://tinyurl.com/8yvcdvy

And as usual, the proposed solution is to get out the big stick and beat everyone into submission. How is that working out for you?

woofighter... at what price ($/Watt) would solar be a viable investment, in your opinion?

Greystone1,

The answer to your question depends on the latitude or season lengths where you live (solar intensity), the typical number of sunny/cloudy days per year in your area (climate), the efficiency of the specific solar panel system used (common crystalline silicon, newer thin-film solar panels, etc.), whether it’s a fixed angle or sun tracking system, whether you have battery storage to spread out generation peaks (to offset your own higher rate retail electrical needs versus selling into the grid at a lower rate), your roof’s layout if it’s a rooftop system, whether you have shade obstructing some of the panels at times, the price that the utility will pay for your output (the part of the output that you can’t use), your own electrical usage, the expected life or 'energy-years' of the system (usually 30 years) and the discount rate you apply to future earnings/savings, perhaps your taxable situation, and, most of all, *the cost of getting it all installed*.

The spreadsheet that we were looking at takes much of this into account. It looks like a simple low-end $18000 solar panel system will pay for itself in 30 years at around 15 cents a kWh in today’s present value terms. That’s the breakpoint where it costs you about the same to stay 100% with the utility or to go with your own solar panel system (to either reduce some of your own electrical demand from the utility or to sell your daytime surplus to them and buy it back at off-peak times). Obviously, you’d want a bit higher rate just to make it worth the trouble of switching over.

If you live in Hawaii where electrical rates are very high (24 cents a kWh), then solar makes a lot of sense because a simple solar panel system is already below local grid parity. In a jurisdiction with cheap coal, hydro or nuclear-supplied electricity (~ 10 cents a kWh), I don’t think you can make it work without a FIT program. If you do it without a FIT, you’d be doing it out of a sense of environmentalism or to be a technology pioneer. In any case, the system will take a long time to pay for itself.

This is my answer to your question about a viable price. I’d want to get at least 20 cents a kWh for all my output to cover long-term risks and to get a reasonable ROI. I’m not sure what that equates to in $/watt. If all I can actually get is 10 cents a kWh, then I’d want the system to cost me $9000 instead of $18000 to get the same ROI. If it’s a 5000 watt system, then $9000/5000w = $2.34/watt. I’ve read that actual costs are about $5- $6 per watt.

My understanding is the panels alone are about half of the cost of the installed system. Another third is for the inverter, a forward-and-reverse-running meter, mounting hardware, conduit and wire. The rest will be labor, fees and taxes. Add 30% for an 'off grid' system with batteries. Panel prices have been falling about 30% a year recently, so the total price of a 'grid-tied' system s/b falling 15%. With carbon taxes all but inevitable within 10 or 15 years, electrical rates are sure to increase faster than inflation in coal burning grid systems. All in all, I’d say it won’t be long before grid parity arrives in most areas. Experts say it should happen by 2020. I’d expect FIT programs to come to an end when this happens.

Hmmm...Here's another thought. Instead of a 30% tax rebate, the government could issue a treasury bond for the full price of the system, that matures in say 50 years. IOW, in 50 years the government would reimburse you for the full cost of the system.

For 50 years you get free electricity and then you get your money back... and you still have the system.

Let's say you buy a system for $20000, which saves you $900/yr. Subtract $150/yr for the eventual inverter replacements. Initial ROI would be $750/$20000 = 3.75%... and this would rise with electricity rates.

The eventual cost to government would be $20000 in highly inflated dollars. It might even be cheaper in real terms than the 30% tax rebate.

Does that sound about right?

If my calculations are correct, the break even point for the future government is 2.44% inflation rate over 50 years.

If the inflation rate is less than 2.44%, the bond would cost the government more than the 30% tax rebate.

If the inflation rate is more than 2.44%, the bond would cost the government less than the 30% tax rebate.

The present value of a lump sum payment of $20000 given to me 50 years from now using a discount rate of 4.67% is $2041.36.

I’m not sure how a 30% tax rebate works in your jurisdiction. If it is a 30% dollar-for-dollar reduction in your total installation cost of $20000, then it is worth $6000.00.

I’d take the tax rebate.

Note: Present Value = Future Value * (1 + Discount Rate Per Year)^Number of Years

I agree that 2.44% is where the two amounts are approximately equal, that is, both choices are worth $6000. But this would be an extraordinarily low inflation rate for the next 50 years based on the last 50 years where the US average has been 4.03%.

I'm not sure why a discount rate would be relevant. The principle remains the same. There is a monthly dividend in the form of savings on the electric bill... which will rise with electricity rates.

I think it's safe to assume the electricity rates will at least keep up with inflation and probably exceed it.

If the inflation rate for the next 50 years were 4.03%, this strategy would be a bargain for the government.

Are you perhaps saying that the initial ROI must exceed the discount rate of 4.67% to tempt you? This would happen if the solar prices dropped 20% to $16000 ($750/$16000 = 4.69%).

I agree that it would be a bargain for the government. The present value of a lump sum payment of $20000 given to me 50 years from now using a discount rate of 4.03% is $2774. The government would definitely prefer to give me $20000 in 50 years rather than give me $6000 now. I wouldn’t like it though since it doesn’t eliminate much of my upfront cost, so it doesn’t help with the ROI on this venture.

And $16000 doesn’t work. A solar system needs to cost me around $9000 given my other assumptions and no FIT to make it worth my trouble. It probably will cost this in 8 years or so.

The total (not the initial) ROI must match the discount rate plus some more to make it worthwhile (a match means I break even only). Your ROI is not useful. $750 is just the first year ROI but the ROI diminishes each year thereafter due to the diminished time value of money as the return gets farther into the future while my initial outlay is always locked into today’s dollars.

In other words, I want the Present Value Estimate on the spreadsheet (cell F20) to be at least 15% higher than my initial outlay (15% being a typical commercial ROI that I should be able to get elsewhere, on the riskier small cap stock market, etc.).

I don’t have as much time during the week for this type of discussion (I’m not retired), nor do I think it’s of much interest to other readers. We should suspend it for a while.

Just trying to find the better way, a win/win deal for both government and homeowner... but no problem. Consider it suspended.

I had some time to kill this morning and had a chance to glance through this issue at a newsstand. I was reminded why I no longer subscribe. I am a science teacher (BSc and BEd)that used to make your magazines available to my students because of the interesting articles and how they spurred on my student's wonder for science. I could not ignore your biased, intellectually morose coverage of the climate science issue, so I cut off my subscription.

While I am by nature and practice a conservationist and an environmentalist, I am also a scientist. Here is some news for you: Scientific issues are, in the long run, not decided by consensus, they are decided by evidence. The evidence (other than what this small group of AGW alarmists cherry pick, confabulate, and exaggerate) overwhelmingly shows that climate has been changing for billions of years and what we have experienced in recent human history and expect in the future is well within the parameters of what has happened in the past.

My job as a teacher is to educate my students, teach them about the nature of science and scientific method, and to encourage critical thinking. It is not to indoctrinate them in the 'religion' of global warming.

This article is really over the top. In my country, David Suzuki has suggested that climate change deniers be put in jail. In your country, one of your government officials said that we should not send fire trucks to the homes of climate change deniers if their houses are burning. Why no mention of anything like this and the many other examples of comments, threats, and incorrect predictions by climate change alarmists? Maybe you should change your name to 'Popular Religion' rather than 'Popular Science' science since that is what the modern environmental movement has turned into.

This should settle the issues of fact and cause once and for all.

Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution
http://tinyurl.com/cp7nwb3

People in the oil business attempting to defend themselves are no worse than the scientist who gets additional funding from liberal-minded Universities to continue their research by promoting something they might not actually agree with. Haven’t we already fingered Al Gore as a fake with his “carbon footprint” putting entire towns to shame? How many scientists have come forward saying they were bullied into taking climate change as their official position? Never saw a news piece where some famous scientist working for a prominent organization resign over pressure to “give in” to climate change?
I love Popular Science and I’m actually somewhat on the fence regarding whether this is a man-made situation or if it’s simply natural occurance that a 4 billion old planet goes through. We are a blink of time in this planet’s entire existence, yet with only 150 years of data, some claim that this is a proof-positive situation. How many years ago was it that the Gore camp had to change their message from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” simply because we continue to see chilly and stormy winters across the planet? (Another mistake that those believe in this point the finger squarely at the US - like you referencing temps in PA in "winter", attempting for us to feel guilty about what we’ve done to the planet). Couple that last sentence with a liberal administration that attempts to impact the market by giving “green energy” companies ridiculous amounts of money for solutions that not only aren’t in demand but don’t point to any sort of real solution.
I think I’m swayed just reading this piece. You reference “the vast majority of climate scientists” as being for global warming (in the tens of thousands – did you verify this?), and infer there are only 25 people that are against it. You make Freedom of Information requests sound like such a diabolical scheme that it’s utterly shameful anyone would want to inquire into what the real message is. That Congress wants to know what is going on is reduced to “being dragged in front of Congress” as if this issue is so clear as day that even Congress is on the resistance.
I’m more disappointed in a magazine I love to read than I am at you as a writer. Because the title of your article should have been “Propaganda – A Climate Change’s guide to how to argue your position”. I’d have MUCH rather read a more balanced piece that looked at the real debate instead of this shill. Easily the worst article ever written in this publication, and easily the most shameless. This is your day job?

Is this an article from THE ONION? Or superman's Bizarro World?
The Global Warming crowd is the one that uses the tactics cited in this article. The Deniers are to busy writing articles and going to work.

If you want to see the essence of each side look at this youtube video. See :30.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZw8yF5alkM

Unfocused shouting clapping and singing on one side and cold logic on the other . They have no argument so they chant.

Look at this debate if you want see how each side argues.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6t2D74UcrY

Those who refer to climate change as global warming that is the first clue that you do not understand what is happening (@skycaptain). Using solar flares, volcanoes and natural causes as the sole reason for the climate change have a very limited knowledge of climate change. The natural balance of our weather is delicate. When we add greenhouse gases to our atmosphere we upset that balance. Refusing to accept what the vast majority of our climate scientist are telling us is simply ignorant. We are already witnessing measurable effects of climate change, it is no longer a theory. Burying your heads in the sand does not change this fact.