tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post4481602635762609253..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Richard Tol challenges assertion by Ottmar Edenhofer in ZDFeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-90317733496516827172010-09-18T22:47:05.156+02:002010-09-18T22:47:05.156+02:00@Lazar
The math in #36 maps to the words you copie...@Lazar<br />The math in #36 maps to the words you copied in #35. The words you copied are not about the sign of the opportunity costs -- that's the paragraph starting with "However, that's not the end of the story." The words you copied are about the likely, relative size of the opportunity costs.<br /><br />Now, you just say "does not follow" without being explicit about the fault in my logic. Unless you make yourself clear, there is nothing I can do to explain.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-18134491830166072472010-09-18T13:32:31.628+02:002010-09-18T13:32:31.628+02:00Richard,
I think you could respond with plain Eng...Richard,<br /><br />I think you could respond with plain English to points of logic made in plain English. Going straight into maths using undefined symbols and unexplained equations and unexplained relations to the points made is kinda insensitive. Seems like a brushoff. Not everyone is versed up as you are. The points seem simple really... Nordhaus state "substitution is costless". If it's not a case of EITHER you have substitution ALONE with a welfare gain of +$585 bn OR innovation ALONE with a welfare gain of +$238 bn, then subtracting 585 from 238 does not give the cost of innovation...Lazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17790682487264638532010-09-18T07:48:06.639+02:002010-09-18T07:48:06.639+02:00@Lazar
You need to do your sums properly.
In the ...@Lazar<br />You need to do your sums properly.<br /><br />In the base path,<br />A(t) = (1+g)A(t-1)<br />B(t) = (1+h)B(t-1)<br /><br />In the policy path,<br />A'(0) = A(0)-D<br />A'(t) = (1+g+d)A'(t-1)<br />B'(0) = B(0)<br />B'(t) = (1+h-e)B'(t-1)<br /><br />If B >> A then A(t)+B(t) > A'(t)+B'(t)richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-5672769758640196632010-09-18T01:16:09.617+02:002010-09-18T01:16:09.617+02:00In fact, never mind Nordhaus (2002), the propositi...In fact, never mind Nordhaus (2002), the proposition...<br /><br /><i>"One could therefore expect that induced technological change would increase the costs of emission reduction."</i><br /><br />does not follow from the mechanism...<br /><br /><i>"Energy is less than 5% of the cost of living and the cost of doing business. Accelerating technological progress in energy at the expense of decelerating technological progress elsewhere can hardly be a winning proposition. In fact, technological progress in energy initially decelerates too because of the switch to less well-developed and more expensive but clean energy."</i><br /><br />... which reduces the welfare gain from innovation, it does not force that gain to be negative.Lazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-39098873615455841692010-09-16T13:16:51.555+02:002010-09-16T13:16:51.555+02:00Richard Tol,
"One could therefore expect tha...Richard Tol,<br /><br /><i>"One could therefore expect that induced technological change would increase the costs of emission reduction. Nordhaus (2002), for example, finds that induced technological change increases costs by $347 bln. [...] Welfare is higher with substitution [vs. induced technological change], so costs are lower."</i><br /><br />The difference ($347 bn) is between welfare change due to<br />a) substitution alone (+$585 bn)<br />b) ITC alone (+$238 bn)<br />... under conditions of a carbon tax adjusted to maximize welfare. This is a COST only when a $ spent on ITC is a $ not spent on substitution. Nordhaus (2002) do not make this assumption. In fact, the $347 bn cannot be an opportunity cost because by definition, capital and labor are substituted for carbon...<br /><br /><i>"In the standard substitution approach, an increase in the price of carbon energy leads to a substitution of capital and labor for carbon energy, moving along the production isoquant from A to B. In the usual approach, substitution is <b>costless</b> and reversible."</i><br /><br />What Nordhaus do is imagine a world where such substitution is impossible, and then ask what is the maximum welfare gain due to expenditure on innovation. That figure ($238 bn) sets an upper limit in the real world where substitution reduces the carbon efficiency gains due to ITC.Lazarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43359778970156028372010-09-15T19:17:36.633+02:002010-09-15T19:17:36.633+02:00I know, Georg, it's difficult. Only the best d...I know, Georg, it's difficult. Only the best deserve it. But I appreciate how hard you try:<br /><br />"Even if you, Richard and Roger Pielke sr. will write the next report alone, as long as this report mentions the simple and quit embarrassing fact that Pliocene CO2 levels will heat the planet to Pliocene temperature levels as long your credibility can be smashed faster than you can say: Carbon sequestration."Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22199590450805076932010-09-14T12:16:23.809+02:002010-09-14T12:16:23.809+02:00@Werner Krauss
Better
"Basically I dont buy...@Werner Krauss<br /><br />Better<br /><br />"Basically I dont buy the whole broker thing."<br /><br />I am rather a candidate for learning how to use a spell checker (seufz).<br /><br />You underestimate the Klimaschmock. It takes quite something to get the prize.Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-38672164088978575742010-09-14T11:13:37.162+02:002010-09-14T11:13:37.162+02:00@Georg 30
And what about "Basically I don’t ...@Georg 30<br /><br />And what about "Basically I don’t but the whole Brooker thing."?<br /><br />Oh boy. Maybe you should yourself consider as a candidate for the next Klimaschmock?Werner Krausshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15094636819952421339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-353945290506253892010-09-13T20:16:50.828+02:002010-09-13T20:16:50.828+02:00I think my last paragraph makes much more sense if...I think my last paragraph makes much more sense if one changes "hitchhiking" against "highjacking". Though some might doubt that.<br /><br />It's not 1994, not 1894, not 1884, but, hell you, this particular year.Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-75393734849653430672010-09-13T19:13:51.553+02:002010-09-13T19:13:51.553+02:00@Georg
I always thought it was Orwells 1884. ;-)
...@Georg<br /><br />I always thought it was Orwells 1884. ;-)<br /><br />How can you compare a hysterical Hansen with an honest broker?<br /><br />Hansen: "The Venus syndrome is the greatest threat to the planet", "death trains", "faustian bargain" "runaway greenhouse effect" ... "The reason is this - coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet".<br /><br /><br />What you do here is building up a perfect straw man.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man<br /><br />If truth, honesty, transparency, fairness and integrity are your ennemies, maybe 1894 is not so far away? ;-)))<br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-37560695969393598442010-09-13T16:59:02.432+02:002010-09-13T16:59:02.432+02:00For some mysterious reason, the system is not acce...<i>For some mysterious reason, the system is not accepting a somewhat lengthy copmment by Georg Hoffmann - this is another try, this time by Hans von Storch:</i><br /><br />@Hans<br /><br />I am fine with treating the credibility of science from time to time. But after all, science is also interesting, isnt it? I at least couldnt find the place in Richards Philippika where he says: And this is wrong because this equation has the wrong sign and this data set is out of date and you-know-the-science-talk. Something along these lines. At the end I learned just that some citation was not right (though even there I still cannt see the point) and that he thinks or feels that this is somehow due to systematic political fraud organized by some IPCC lead authors. Now he became the lead author. Let's hope everything will change to the better.<br /><br />I am pretty sure that in a public presentation you and I tell nearly the same stuff and I pass much time on showing uncertainties and always steal your joke about people thinking they will stop sea level rise when taking a bicycle.<br /><br /> <br /><br />I think we disagree basically on two points.<br /><br />1) You think that credibility is a function of the one who is judged by the public depending on what he/she actually did or not did. I don’t think that’s true. Even if you, Richard and Roger Pielke sr. will write the next report alone, as long as this report mentions the simple and quit embarrassing fact that Pliocene CO2 levels will heat the planet to Pliocene temperature levels as long your credibility can be smashed faster than you can say: Carbon sequestration. Economic and political forces rise and destroy your credibility depending on many factors and one of the least important factors will be if you’ve interpreted correctly a paper by Nordhaus 2002. So doing a good job in these reports is for the scientific community itself but hardly for their public credibility. Remember, a scandal in politics is not because a politician was corrupt, had external affair, was smoking Cuban cigarres but because his political support became weak. A scandal is a consequence of his weakened power and not of his behaviour. Once the IPCC became in the line of fire and lost parts of its political support it was clear that someone finds out that Pachauri makes extra money or Jones had an biased opinion on paleo papers. That does not mean that Pachauri SHOULD make extra money or that IPCC authors SHOULD have biased judgments. But if they do/have or not does nor affect the IPCC credibility nor the credibility of science in general.<br /><br />2) There is no political neutral standpoint in this debate. Basically I don’t but the whole Brooker thing. It is clear that someone like Hansen thinks that the IPCC with its rather conservative approach is hardly anymore helpful for the problem and pending threads he thinks exist whereas Richard thinks that eco-radicals hitchhiked the world or the EU or whatever and manipulate us to Orwells 1994. So if its true that there is no neutrality then better present science the best way you can and say your political opinion anyway. I at least (since you said something about that) have no strong political opinion how to deal with the entire CO2 problem (meaning I see a kind of a problem but I have no clue what to do).Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-51930708829800031472010-09-13T16:06:13.756+02:002010-09-13T16:06:13.756+02:00@Flin
Nordhaus's "with substitution"...@Flin<br />Nordhaus's "with substitution" is "without induced innovation". Welfare is higher with substitution, so costs are lower.<br /><br />To add to the confusion, Nordhaus finds that climate policy leads to an increase in welfare (because he also takes account of the avoided impacts of climate change) -- the scenario with induced innovation leads to a lower welfare gain than the scenario without.<br /><br />The paper is no hallmark of clarity, but that's no excuse as the IPCC is full of top notch academics.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-10915534239212762272010-09-13T16:03:24.880+02:002010-09-13T16:03:24.880+02:00There is a comment at the end of te blog post that...There is a comment at the end of te blog post that reads:<br /><br />"Comment by Hans von Storch: Ottmar Edenhofer as well as the Renate Christ from the IPCC secretariat have been informed about this challenge."<br /><br />This tells all about this blog and the scientists who earn it, about honesty and about fairness.<br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-91588576395033050942010-09-13T15:23:05.961+02:002010-09-13T15:23:05.961+02:00So Nordhaus 2002 basically finds that the CO2 redu...So Nordhaus 2002 basically finds that the CO2 reducing effect of induced innovation (=rising carbon price leads to R&D and therefore to more efficient solutions) is half as big as the effect of substitution (= investing capital and labor in products that use less CO2)?<br /><br />However, I do not find where Nordhaus states that induced technological change increases costs.<br /><br />I only see that the public welfare with substitution is 347 bn$(1990) bigger than than the welfare with induced innovation.<br /><br />How does that translate into an "increase in costs"? (might be that I just dont understand the paper)_Flin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-78301312344665994972010-09-13T15:02:35.095+02:002010-09-13T15:02:35.095+02:00@Richard
Ok Richard, I will not read about what w...@Richard<br /><br />Ok Richard, I will not read about what we are actually talking about, not even what the IPCC actually said. Promised. You are right.<br /><br />I can already congratulate your IPCC co-authors. That will be fun guys.Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-1297233050087131242010-09-13T14:46:51.268+02:002010-09-13T14:46:51.268+02:00@Bart
Learning curves are partial equilibrium at b...@Bart<br />Learning curves are partial equilibrium at best.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-26943874343951593522010-09-13T14:41:12.974+02:002010-09-13T14:41:12.974+02:00There is plenty of experimental evidence for learn...There is plenty of experimental evidence for learning curves: The price per unit decreases as the cumulative production increases. Solar PV is often mentioned as a prime example. <br /><br />That doesn't mean of course that they can be extrapolated to infinity: Parts of the production process are not eligible to 'learning'.Bart Verheggenhttp://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-35336403572031998332010-09-13T14:33:48.150+02:002010-09-13T14:33:48.150+02:00@Richard
Ok, Richard. I will not read something o...@Richard<br /><br />Ok, Richard. I will not read something on the subject, promised. I will not even read what the IPCC wrote on the subject. You are right. <br /><br />I can already congratulate your IPCC co-authors for the pleasure working with you. Good luck folks.<br /><br />PS<br /><br />I try again to submit part II from above after reformating. Sorry.<br /><br />@Hans Part II<br /><br />I think we disagree basically on two points.<br /><br /><br />First - You think that credibility is a function of the one who is <br />judged by the public depending on what he actually did or not did. <br />I don’t think that’s true. Even if you, Richard and Roger Pielke sr will <br />write the next report, as long as this report mentions the simple and quit <br />embarrassing fact that Pliocene CO2 levels will heat the planet to Pliocene <br />temperature levels as long your credibility can be smashed faster than you <br />can say: Carbon sequestration. Economic and political forces rise and <br />destroy your credibility depending on many factors and one of the last <br />important will be if you’ve interpreted correctly a paper by Nordhaus 2002. <br />So doing a good job in these reports is for the scientific community itself <br />but hardly for their public credibility. Remember, a scandal in politics is <br />not because a politician was corrupt, had external affair, was smoking <br />Cuban cigarres but because his political support became weak. A scandal <br />is a consequence of his weakened power and not of his behaviour. Once the <br />IPCC got in the line of fire and lost parts of its political support it was <br />clear that someone finds out that Pachauri makes extra money or Jones had an <br />biased opinion on paleo papers. That does not mean that Pachauri SHOULD make <br />extra money or that IPCC authors SHOULD have biased judgments. But if they <br />do or not does nor affect the IPCC credibility nor the credibility of <br />science in general. The “credibility” of a person is judged more or less <br />exclusively within the system (here Science).Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-47033640347410323642010-09-13T14:31:42.669+02:002010-09-13T14:31:42.669+02:00@Richard
Ok, Richard. I will not read something o...@Richard<br /><br />Ok, Richard. I will not read something on the subject, promised. I will not even read what the IPCC wrote on the subject. You are right. <br /><br />I can already congratulate your IPCC co-authors for the pleasure working with you. Good luck folks.<br /><br />PS<br /><br />I try again to submit part II from above after reformating. Sorry.<br /><br />@Hans Part II<br /><br />I think we disagree basically on two points.<br /><br />1) You think that credibility is a function of the one who is <br />judged by the public depending on what he/she actually did or not did. <br />I don’t think that’s true. Even if you, Richard and Roger Pielke sr will <br />write the next report, as long as this report mentions the simple and quit <br />embarrassing fact that Pliocene CO2 levels will heat the planet to Pliocene <br />temperature levels as long your credibility can be smashed faster than you <br />can say: Carbon sequestration. Economic and political forces rise and <br />destroy your credibility depending on many factors and one of the last <br />important will be if you’ve interpreted correctly a paper by Nordhaus 2002. <br />So doing a good job in these reports is for the scientific community itself <br />but hardly for their public credibility. Remember, a scandal in politics is <br />not because a politician was corrupt, had external affair, was smoking <br />Cuban cigarres but because his political support became weak. A scandal <br />is a consequence of his weakened power and not of his behaviour. Once the <br />IPCC got in the line of fire and lost parts of its political support it was <br />clear that someone finds out that Pachauri makes extra money or Jones had an <br />biased opinion on paleo papers. That does not mean that Pachauri SHOULD make <br />extra money or that IPCC authors SHOULD have biased judgments. But if they <br />do/have or not does nor affect the IPCC credibility nor the credibility of <br />science in general. The “credibility” of a person is judged more or less <br />exclusively within the system (here Science).Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24288537673963045942010-09-13T14:22:26.323+02:002010-09-13T14:22:26.323+02:00@Georg
Please engage with the discussion.
The IPC...@Georg<br />Please engage with the discussion.<br /><br />The IPCC reviewed N studies. It says that all N found that dC<0.<br /><br />In fact, at least 2 of those N found that dC>0.<br /><br />There is no need to talk about Energy & Environment, North Korea, or ideology. We do not need to worry about whether those N papers are representative of the literature, or whether the literature is any good. It is simply a matter of checking whether the IPCC statements are true in a very narrow sense of that word.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-71991532183145368972010-09-13T14:11:48.015+02:002010-09-13T14:11:48.015+02:00Thank you for your answer.
After thinking it throu...Thank you for your answer.<br />After thinking it through it is obvious. <br />Since "dirty energy" is more advanced and established, generating the same amount of energy will need higher investments in form of capital or labor with clean energy.<br />So the question is whether the higher investment is higher or lower than the external costs of "dirty energy". And how much more efficient clean energy needs to become to economically justify a switch, if that is not already the case.<br />Which, of course, is just layman's kitchen table science._Flin_noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87071714287792249862010-09-13T14:11:34.180+02:002010-09-13T14:11:34.180+02:00@Richard
I try to engage, but I thought it's ...@Richard <br />I try to engage, but I thought it's better to read about it before, in particular because of my layman status concerning this matter. It was actually you who tried to convince that I have just to check for the pure existence of a peer reviewed paper to demonstrate that the IPCC is wrong. I think that is obviously not a valid method.<br /><br />So I hope it fine with you when I try to understand a bit more what we are actually talking about. And thank you for the links.<br /><br />PS Part II above is still missing.<br />I dont know why.<br /><br />PPS Economy is obviously a much more ideological type of science than radiation physics. Does the IPCC actually cite hardcore communists approaches how to tackle climate change economy? I mean, are there any papers of Chavez economists or Chinese theoreticians or Cuban scientists? Or the Northcorean way to deal with climate change? If such studies exist why apparently (?) they were not considered in the IPCC? And if they not exist why is nobody interested in this issue in China?Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-27967972159070474662010-09-13T13:57:16.425+02:002010-09-13T13:57:16.425+02:00@Georg
Please engage with the discussion.
Nordhau...@Georg<br />Please engage with the discussion.<br /><br />Nordhaus (2002) can be found here:<br />http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/induced_innovation_preprint.pdf<br /><br />Nordhaus is here:<br />http://ideas.repec.org/e/pno115.html<br />(#138 in the world)<br /><br />Last year, Ladbrokes gave 6/1 odds<br />http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/10/nobel-odds.htmlrichardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-24139577329600799202010-09-13T13:32:14.742+02:002010-09-13T13:32:14.742+02:00@Richard
"All you need to do prove the IPCC w...@Richard<br />"All you need to do prove the IPCC wrong, is find one paper that draws an opposite conclusion."<br /><br />Hardly. There is a reviewed paper in Energy and Environment that "demonstrates" that CO2 was up to 450ppm in the 1940s. It was not considered by the IPCC. I can give many more examples when needed.<br /><br />So besides of beeing published some plausibility and credibility does not do any harm for being considered by the IPCC.<br />But as I said I try to better understand the actual science and not just one sign.Georg Hoffmannhttp://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-46485273497836417422010-09-13T13:07:52.155+02:002010-09-13T13:07:52.155+02:00@Georg
There is no intuition needed. The discussio...@Georg<br />There is no intuition needed. The discussion is about the sign of an effect. You do not need to understand the mechanism to check its sign.<br /><br />All you need to do prove the IPCC wrong, is find one paper that draws an opposite conclusion.<br /><br />All you need to do to prove me wrong, is show that I misrepresent Nordhaus and Smulders.richardtolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14239680555557587153noreply@blogger.com