• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Social Cost of Carbon May Be Not Much

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If there's less money in AGW advocacy, will it decline?

Climate News
The ‘social cost of carbon’ may have just gone negative

Ross McKittrick writes on his personal web page: (h/t to David L. Hagen)
I have just released a working paper with Kevin Dayaratna and David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC which recomputes standard Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) estimates using updated empirical estimates of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).

We applied the 2015 Lewis and Curry ECS distribution to the widely-used DICE and FUND Integrated Assessment Models. Previously the developers of these models (and others) have relied on model-simulated distribution of ECS values, especially from a 2007 paper by Roe and Baker. The Roe-Baker distribution underpins the US government’s current SCC values used for regulatory purposes. We critique this aspect of SCC computation, explaining why the Roe-Baker distribution is unsuitable. A major reason is that simulated ECS distributions have been superseded by a suite of empirically-estimated distributions. Using a recent, well-constrained empirical ECS distribution we find the estimated SCC drops substantially in both the DICE and FUND models, and in the latter there is a large probability it is no longer even positive.
The paper:
EMPIRICALLY-CONSTRAINED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON Kevin Dayaratna Heritage Foundation Washington DC Ross McKitrick Department of Economics, University of Guelph Frontier Centre for Public Policy David Kreutzer Heritage Foundation Washington DC . . .
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
[h=2]Assessment of Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon[/h] Posted on June 7, 2016 | 43 comments
by Judith Curry
Some new analyses are shedding some light on deficiencies in the approach to estimate the social cost of carbon.
Continue reading →

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Great link! *They seem to be getting better as disagreements get more heated!* :thumbs: The comments on this link seemed to be more toward the "it appears that the process that benefits those in charge is being adopted because it benefits them, even though they know it's skewed." Hmmm...

For the record, I'm going to add Judith Curry to the list of gals I'd very much enjoy having a few drinks with! At present there are now five of them, so I only have room for three more to consider it an authentic Arthurian Round Table, where everyone is of equal rank! Fair is fair! :lamo
 
Last edited:

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Great link! *They seem to be getting better as disagreements get more heated!* :thumbs: The comments on this link seemed to be more toward the "it appears that the process that benefits those in charge is being adopted because it benefits them, even though they know it's skewed." Hmmm...

For the record, I'm going to add Judith Curry to the list of gals I'd very much enjoy having a few drinks with! At present there are now five of them, so I only have room for three more to consider it an authentic Arthurian Round Table, where everyone is of equal rank! Fair is fair! :lamo

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

I'm sorry I wouldn't qualify.:(
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:

I'm sorry I wouldn't qualify.:(

:agree: However, what was standard in the days of Knights in armor has changed. The current social meme argues you can be any sex you choose to be at any given time, so who's going to chance being accused of not being PC? No one on my list! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,300
Reaction score
35,370
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hahahah Heritage.
 

Buzz

Irritant
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
3,229
Reaction score
617
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You can usually tell if a denialist paper is bunk because they will always release it to the public before it gets peer reviewed. Wouldn't mislead too many people if they released it after it was rejected by a peer review.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,300
Reaction score
35,370
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You can usually tell if a denialist paper is bunk because they will always release it to the public before it gets peer reviewed. Wouldn't mislead too many people if they released it after it was rejected by a peer review.

Heritage doesn't do "peer review" the way you and I normally think about it.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You can usually tell if a denialist paper is bunk because they will always release it to the public before it gets peer reviewed. Wouldn't mislead too many people if they released it after it was rejected by a peer review.

Heritage doesn't do "peer review" the way you and I normally think about it.

McKittrick (with McIntyre) already has the hockey stick carcass mounted on his trophy wall, so don't sell him short.
 

Buzz

Irritant
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
3,229
Reaction score
617
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I wonder how many times it has been pointed out to you that Mann corrected the errors that Mcintyre and Mckittrick found in Mann98. And that numerous other temp reconstructions have been done that verify Mann's "hockey stick". Dozens I'll bet. And it never gets through that denialist mental block... does it?
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,908
Reaction score
4,054
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wonder how many times it has been pointed out to you that Mann corrected the errors that Mcintyre and Mckittrick found in Mann98. And that numerous other temp reconstructions have been done that verify Mann's "hockey stick". Dozens I'll bet. And it never gets through that denialist mental block... does it?

I can't believe anyone still believes Mann's scripture given how long ago it was debunked.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,908
Reaction score
4,054
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think you meant to type 'confirmed and expanded upon by so many independent groups'.

No I meant Mann's work isn't science it is scripture. But I've been through why that is with you for years yet here you are still parrotting the same old drivel.

Get over it. The worldview you want imposed upon the rest of us isn't going to happen using this nonsense because the public no longer believes it. You are going to have to start dealing with that reality
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,892
Reaction score
19,780
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No I meant Mann's work isn't science it is scripture. But I've been through why that is with you for years yet here you are still parrotting the same old drivel.

Get over it. The worldview you want imposed upon the rest of us isn't going to happen using this nonsense because the public no longer believes it. You are going to have to start dealing with that reality

Science is true whether or not you or 'the people' believe it or not.
 

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
16,908
Reaction score
4,054
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Science is true whether or not you or 'the people' believe it or not.

And if Manns work were genuine science you might have a point.

Parrot the sacred verses as much as you like but your day is done here and only you refuse to acknowledge it :roll:
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
53,892
Reaction score
19,780
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
79,300
Reaction score
35,370
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
McKittrick (with McIntyre) already has the hockey stick carcass mounted on his trophy wall, so don't sell him short.

What exactly do you guys think was proven about that, again?
 
Top Bottom