Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
AccuWeather.COM -- 1,044 daily record low temperatures have been broken this month (July) nationwide according to NCDC -- count record "low highs" and the number increases to 2,925, surely to pass 3,000 before the end of the month.
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
38 Comments:
Global warming is real. Denying it is pointless. The degree to which its caused by carbon emissions and the likely consequences are up for grabs. Gore (and others) scare stories only cheapen the discussion and policy making. Potshoting warming only discredits the shooter.
Yes, Brucest. And cooling is actually evidence of warming too, right?
It would be wonderful if leftists would take lessons in logical and critical thinking. Of course, if they were susceptible to this sort of thinking, they would not be leftists in the first place.
This cooling in North America is just evidence of warming in other places...duh! You cannot prove or disprove global warming with evidence! It is real because Al Gore said so. No shut up, pay your carbon taxes, and drive your electric golfcart to work. The CFL inspector will be at your house after work to see if you are incompliance with the squiggly lightbulb law.
The planet may or may not be gradually warming. We don't have reliable data that dates back far enough to tell for sure. However, two things are sure, Al Gore and his left-wing followers are lying to us about global warming, carbon offsets, etc. and we could actually use some warmer weather. We've had a very cool summer so far.
The government should definitely not enact any of the mandates that Al Gore is currently suggesting.
Brucest said... " Global warming is real. Denying it is pointless."
Is that like "resistance is futile?" Are you Borg?
I can believe that.
I don't know if AGW is worth worryng about or not.
What does concern me is the knee-jerk reactions: If you are a liberal, you "believe in" global warming; if you are a conservative, then you think it is all folly.
Then, anecdotes are cited as "proof." A slab of ice breaks off the North, or a cool summer in Buffalo.
Actually, I am more worried about an Ice Age than anything else--we are about due.
Hard to believe, but Lake Manley filled up Death Valley (now the harshest desert in North America) only about 10,000 years ago. I have found glaciated rock in the Mojave.
Obviously, climates change. When man came to North America, the ocean level was 60 meters lower than today, about 14,000 years ago.
But hey, let your political beliefs detarmine your scientific beliefs.
A lot of right-wingers think evolution is a crock--they control the Republican Party platform on this matter.
Who're you going to vote for?
I dunno.
The polar jet stream has dipped into the lower 48 more than is usual. That is the proximal cause of the settings of new lows.
Why has the polar jet stream dipped? Because of extreme warming in the Arctic.
Global warming is real. If the pattern of some cooler local temps is confusing you, say "global climate change" instead.
Global warming is real... that's pretty-well settled. But what does that mean?
It means that there is solid empirical evidence indicating that the global mean temperature is increasing. That's all. Nothing more.
What it does not mean is that individual regions or individual years will see *consistently* higher temperatures every year. In fact, a cold North American summer is not at all inconsistent with longer-term rises in global mean temperatures.
Additionally, there is strong evidence that higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide is the driving force behind the change in global mean temperature.
This is where the debate should be starting. How significant is the rise? Does it warrant action on our part? What kind of action? Are there ways in which the Earth counters changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide naturally? Do the benefits of action outweigh the costs?
Denying the reality of measured changes in the Earth's climate just puts you out of the discussion. If you want to influence the actions that will be undertaken, it's important to do so in a way that is backed up with real data.
Meanwhile, the Pacific Northwest (God's Country), continues to see record heat:
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2009/07/drought-and-heat.html
"2009 is the driest 20 May-19 Jul period on record (in Seattle) using the combined SeaTac/downtown observations."
So temperatures have been flat for the last 10 years. No increases in the last 10 years.
Carbon dioxide levels have risen over the last 10 years.
Global warming over the last 30 years HAS HAPPENED, but none of us know what the hell is GOING TO HAPPEN.
The earth is 5,000,000,000 years old. Do you think we are really going to be able to predict future weather based on 150 years of readings?
"Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player.
The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't!"
source: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
95.000% heat retention contribution of water is a pretty round number. It looks like it was made up. On the other hand, if what we are looking at is relative effect, then the others are low regardless of the H2O peg point.
From National Geographic: Trees and crops major contributors to global warming.
"Finally, they concluded that what was different in Germany and Poland was the greater amount of water vapor being released into the atmosphere by forests and crops.
The increased humidity had driven the temperature up, Philipona said.
The scientists calculated that 70 percent of the recent increase in temperatures in central Europe is due to water vapor, and 30 percent is due to other greenhouse gases."
source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming_2.html
In order for the government to take action on global warming as is currently proposed, I see four things that need to be proven:
1) PROVE THAT TEMERATURE IS RISING. It is important to ask over what time period is it rising. There is strong evidence that temperature has risen over the past 100 years (&600 years), however, in the past 10 years or 1000 years, there has been little change. We are much warmer than 11,000 years ago (ice age). We are much cooler than 80 million years ago.
2) PROVE THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY THE MAIN CAUSE FOR THE GLOBAL WARMING. Even if temperatures are rising, that doesn't mean that we are causing them.
3) PROVE THAT RISING TEMPERATURES ARE A PROBLEM. When I was a child in the 1970's, I was told of all of the economic damage that would be done by global cooling (it was thought that the earth was cooling then). It is quite possible that global warming would be a good thing.
4) PROVE THE COST OF THE SOLUTION IS GREATER THAN THE COST OF THE PROBLEM. If we are going to pay $100 trillion to fix a problem that does $10 trillion in damage, it doesn't make much sense.
If these four things can be proven, I will be glad to join the fight against global warming. I'll admit that I am skeptical. As I understand the theory:
a) Temperatures are rising because we are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.
b) We are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.
c) Fossil fuels were created by by decaying plant and animal life.
d) The plant and animals that decayed into fossil fuels got their carbon from the atmosphere.
If this is the case, we are returning the CO2 back to the atmosphere where it once was. Even if we burned every pound of coal, oil and gas on earth, our CO2 levels would not rise to where they once were because much of our previous CO2 is now tied up in limestone (CaCO3). As such, our AGW will not be as high as our previous natural temperatures.
Agree that we cannot exchange weather forecasts as arguments for & against global warming. Long term warming is not the same as weather. Unfortunately, proponents of the GHG theory have been distorting weather for 20 years to make their case.
It’s a tough sell. And probably you have to find ways to exaggerate the threat. And you can in fact find ways to make the threat serious.
James Hanson's former supervisor at NASA
When politics trumps the scientific report of the IPCC
Kevin,
The approach you suggest echoes what Gary Becker wrote recently.
I'm on record in publications favoring first a modest carbon tax and than using the proceeds of that tax for R & D for carbon free energy technologies. Not only would such avoid global warming risk, but would also certainly reduce costs associated with traditional pollutants, and should save the billions we effectively spend for energy security, and maybe even provide energy at lower cost.
I frequently point out that, notwithstanding all the hand wringing, that expenditures on energy related R & S declined steadily in the decade and a half prior to 2006.
I have for some time been very pessimistic that should GHG induced global warming be proven to be a problem, that our political system can effectively address such a long run issue.
"Why has the polar jet stream dipped? Because of extreme warming in the Arctic"....
LOL!
Now you know why its called Climate Change Fraud...
Benny the Pseudo librarian says: "A lot of right-wingers think evolution is a crock--they control the Republican Party platform on this matter"...
Is that you George Soros?... ROFLMAO!
"I'm on record in publications favoring first a modest carbon tax and than using the proceeds of that tax for R & D for carbon free energy technologies"...
I'm on record for favoring that crackpots with silly ideas should pay for it out of their own pockets...
"I frequently point out that, notwithstanding all the hand wringing, that expenditures on energy related R & S declined steadily in the decade and a half prior to 2006"...
(energy related R & S?!?! does that mean Rise & Shine?)
Again here's YOUR chance lad to go down in history as one of those who saved mankind from itself because of that alledgedly dirty carbon based energy system that has brought us ALL (or those who can afford it) comforts and conviences of the 21st century...
the artificial construct known as "cap and trade" is nothing more than a fraud to get companies to pay more taxes. It will have very little, to no, impact on CO2 levels, much less global warming...
Selecting one part of the country for this is just trash. Look at Texas where we are having a 30 day run of 100+ temps. So it just depends as has been noted on where you look. This is another example of figures don't lie, liars figure
1,
Why do you think the cap & trade legislation is proposing giving away carbon credits? A ploy to gain acceptance?
It's about the cap.
RE: the polar jet stream
Isn't it wonderful how many amateur climatologists there are?
Anon. 3:48,
Stay cool. Agree weather is weather not evidence of warming or cooling. You have to grant that those listening to every weather event being assigned apocalyptic significance in recent years are merely getting a bit of their own back.
Glad to hear someone is enjoying this summer. I am looking out my window as it clouds over for again for a 4th consecutive day of rain, hail and thunder storms (about 6" of precipitation so far judging by my wheelbarrow).
Good news...I'm still dividing, transplanting and creating new perennial borders. Things that generally cannot be done beyond early - mid June in Southern Ontario.
Have a good summer :)
No. 1 -
I am about to change your name to No. 0.
I am sorry if you are a Republican, but the plain fact is the R-Party wants to teach "creationism" in schools, alongside evolution.
Plus, they think they should control certain kinds of medical research, such as stem cell research.
I just call it as I see it. Stupid governmental intrusion and superstitions parading around as religion.
The state should be secular. End of story. Practice religion on your own dime.
"Isn't it wonderful how many amateur climatologists there are?"...
Ha! Ha! Nailed in one QT...
"Why do you think the cap & trade legislation is proposing giving away carbon credits? A ploy to gain acceptance?"...
Well two things come to mind here and one of them is that Brad DeNoyer's comment: "I believe there is a general sense among manufacturers that something ought to be done" is if you'll pardon the pun hot air...
Note the following from Steve Milloy's Green Hell blog: One reason many industries have been willing to go along with cap-and-trade is to escape tortuous and unpredictable EPA regulation of CO2 under the CAA. In addition to the many onerous provisions of the CAA, the law has aggressive “citizen suit” provisions that enable the greens to enforce the law by legal action...
The second thing that comes to mind is that cap & trade legislation isn't actually giving anything away...
Someone or several many someones else will be picking up the supposed slack as farmer steve tells us (just a smalll portion):
Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits.
The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get.
Then asked for questions.
I asked what is the source of this money?
The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute.
I asked where do they get this money?
He had no answer.
So I answered for him, asking, won’t it come from everyone who pays their Power bill?
He then agreed and said “that could be”. (there's more)
There's a couple more bits of inanity regarding this supposed 'green energy' and its REAL costs to consumers...
From FuturePundit (via Instapundit): Germans To Pay Much For Offshore Wind Power
Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants before the end of their useful lives, building more coal electric plants, and will make Germans pay thru the nose for expensive offshore wind electric power.
It was the revival of Kohl’s center-right Christian Democratic Union party under Chancellor Angela Merkel that delivered the concessions needed to kick-start the offshore-wind industry. In 2006 Merkel’s government—a coalition that also included the Social Democrats and the Christian Social Union—made power-grid operators responsible for running cables to offshore farms. That shaved about one-fifth off the average cost of a project. And last year Merkel improved the revenue side of the ledger, boosting the offshore tariff to 0.15/kWh (US $0.21/kWh).
(there's more)
We all know just how well Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has worked out, right?
Well the dim-witted Dems are apparently going to go to the well one more time if Green Hell blog has it right:
Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen introduced on March 24 the Green Bank Act of 2009
I think that we are actually in an El Nino weather pattern and honestly global warming will not make all areas of the globe warmer, some will get colder as ocean currents are disrupted.
ITS CLIMATE CHANGE THAT IS AT ISSUE.
If you want to ban or control something, make it Koolaid. Think of how many problems disappear if there is no Koolaid to drink.
Spurious regression,
Those two words end the debate and close the book on anthropogenic global warming.
Everything else is hot air.
Karl Marx.
Those two words explain why we are getting all this hot air.
It's 118F in Vegas today. I found where the weather pattern shifted. BTW, you should go on "Scientific Sites" once in a while.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=el-nino-has-arrived-09-07-10
They are very a-political, and digest large sums of real data, vice the filtered non-sense and cartoons you constantly site. Cartoons? Really? A staff cartoonist knows something? Really? I wasted my time learning math and science while some idiot learned how to proportionately draw "perspectives". The Pacific will see this year's hurricanes, while the East is spared. Cool in the NE, hot as blazes here in Vegas. A few years from now? Ask a cartoon drawing man-child.
1,
Interesting links. Looks like this administration has some real clinkers.
BxCapricorn: According to weather.com, the high temp in Las Vegas, NV on July 26, 2009 was 104 which is exactly average for that date. The record high was 118 and this record was set way back in 1931. Prior to that, the high was relatively cool at 97 degrees for the 25th and the 24th.
http://www.weather.com/weather/pastweather/USNV0049?from=tenDay_topnav_undeclared
So, did you intentionally attempt to mislead us or were you simply mistaken as to the facts?
And the high on July 27 was 106. So, why did you lie to us? Did you imagine that this would aid your argument?
"I am sorry if you are a Republican, but the plain fact is the R-Party wants to teach "creationism" in schools, alongside evolution"...
Yeah, sure they do... If it makes you feel better thinking that ALL Republicans (which I'm not) think the way YOU claim then run with it lad...
"They are very a-political, and digest large sums of real data, vice the filtered non-sense and cartoons you constantly site"...
When did American Scientific become apolitical? With the coming issue?
Now if you want real science that's also apolitical try Anthony Watts site out: Watts Up With That?
It's all so amazingly farcical. It's like the government decided it liked the weather today, and passed a law decreeing that it should be this way forever.
What's more amazing is the number of scientists who are both sure they are right and sure they can actually do something to "fix" it.
Benny the Real Libertarian said, "Plus, they think they should control certain kinds of medical research, such as stem cell research."
Benny, you are simply regurgitating Democratic talking points. The best I can tell, you are free to do stem cell research as you see fit if you spend your own money to do it. If you want federal money to do the research, then there are strings attached. A real libertarian would oppose federal funding for stem cell research (along with federal funding for other research). I think truth in advertising requires you to change your name to "Benny the Real Liberal."
Hawg-
In fact, I do not supprt government-funding for medical research. But, if we are going to have it, then drop the religion crap.
If I am a liberal, then join me. I want to abolish the Dept of Agriculture, HUD, Dept. of Commerce, and DOL. Cut the military in half. Eliminate GNMA, GNMA, SEC and FDIC.
Sell the public parks and beaches.
And (Sorry Dr Perry) sell public universities.
Funny how Dr. Perry never wants to privatize the University of Michigan.
"What's more amazing is the number of scientists who are both sure they are right and sure they can actually do something to "fix" it."...
Its all about the grant money...
"Funny how Dr. Perry never wants to privatize the University of Michigan"...
Did you make that up on the fly or do you have a credible source for that comment?
Just asking is all...
No. 0:
I do not know if you, or Dr. Perry, is still reading. I say that as Dr. Perry has never indicated a desire to privatize the University of Michigan, and as he has tenure and a really good health plan.
But, if he does, I hope he comes out and says so. Maybe Michigan could get some money for the campuses, and the residents of Michigan would probably get a better education, and the taxpayers would get relief.
At least that is the free-market theory. Of course, Dr. Perry would support such an action. He supports free trade, and bashes unions and national health care, so it would be consistent with his principles.
Dr. Perry?
Benny the pseudo librarian says: "I say that as Dr. Perry has never indicated a desire to privatize the University of Michigan, and as he has tenure and a really good health plan"...
Hmmm, do I detect a hint of jealousy there?
"Maybe Michigan could get some money for the campuses, and the residents of Michigan would probably get a better education, and the taxpayers would get relief"...
How? Billboard space? Buildings painted with logos from private companies?
You really might have a point there regarding privatization of colleges...
Right now as far as I can tell the price difference between state university systems and private schools isn't that much...
The only real relative bargain is the community college system and there's nothing wrong with them from what I can see...
I went to private college...
"He supports free trade, and bashes unions and national health care, so it would be consistent with his principles"...
Hmmm, now that's interesting...
Real world observations are now bashing...
Here you go amigo: Welcome to the Economics Website. This site is an introduction to basic concepts on economics
Let's "cherry pick" from the sweet cherry captial.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/weather/07/29/washington.oregon.heat/index.html
Post a Comment
<< Home