The Middle Ground with Global Warming

The debate regarding global warming has seemingly been reduced to two different arguments.

One, is global warming occurring? In this argument, critics attack data which is used to support the global warming thesis, e.g. do rising local temperatures reflect global warming or changes in land use? The one hundred year record of rising global ocean levels along with shrinking polar ice caps has largely settled this argument.

In the second, the different sides debate if global warming is caused by increased carbon dioxide or by the solar activity or by some other contributor (water). However, this debate is largely unnecessary since many physical phenomena have multiple contributors.

In mathematical terms, instead of arguing whether global warming is f(x) or f(y), we could just accept that it is both (f(x,y)). And this makes sense. When one does an energy balance around the earth, the earth must radiate to space (when at steady state) enough energy to balance the solar energy coming in. So, if the incoming solar energy increases, the temperature of the radiating layer must increase too.

However, planetary science teaches that the energy balance only sets the temperature of the radiating layer not the temperature of the planetary surface. So, by increasing the altitude of the radiating layer (by increasing the concentration of gases which absorb/emit in the infrared such as carbon dioxide), the temperature at the surface increases since one sees temperature decrease as one goes up.

This is the accepted explanation of the Venus surface temperature (and why it is cooler in the mountains).

But getting back to earth, the real question which is not addressed with global warming is "Should we care?" As the US attempts to compete with Asia, if we increase our cost of electric power (by requiring fewer CO2 emissions), more manufacturing will shift from the US, they will build more coal burning power plants, and the only thing we will have accomplished is to decrease the GDP of the US.

In addition, sea levels have increased over the last century with little negative effect. Furthermore, we can ask the question: what if there was global cooling? Then we would have crop failures, longer and harder winters, and all sorts of issues. Rather, the opposition to global warming seems to be "change is bad" and causing serious damage to the economy is ok.

So where’s the middle ground? The US imports huge amounts of oil. This import has many negative effects. It forces us to prop up Hugo Chavez’s regime and the Middle East. It represents about half of our foreign trade deficit (depends on the current oil price). And it represents a significant threat to our national security.

How do you fix this? You tax gasoline heavily like Europe and use the money to eliminate corporate income taxes (which many corporations avoid mostly anyway). This pleases the environmentalists (higher gasoline taxes mean less consumption and carbon dioxide emissions). This pleases the patriots because the reliance on oil is reduced. And this pleases everybody else because eliminating corporate income taxes would be a huge stimulus for the economy leading to many jobs.

Note: To keep Congress from spending the money instead, one might have to include a clause which kept spending from rising above the rate of inflation or the tax would sunset.

Disclosure: long S&P 500 Index Funds, foreign index funds, and DIA

Comments

[Lenzie:]

I thought this was supposed to be an unbiased review of the evidence, instead I find the patently absurd suggestion that global sea levels have risen. Yes sea levels have risen if you happen to be in a place like England which is sinking. But no they have not if you happen to be in a place like Scotland which is not. The only decent resume of all the evidence I saw, suggested that the best estimate was a miniscule rise which was much less than the errors involved. I.e. THEY COULD BE SINKING, THEY COULD BE RISING, BUT ONLY SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WOULD SAY EITHER WAY FOR SURE!

Aug 20 06:00 AM

[WayneS:]

If global warming was a real threat wouldn't we:
Immediately stop all races and tractor pulls etc
Slow down and quit tailgating (average person wastes $1k/year)
Carpool (I saved a minimum $75K over 28 year).
Use only local trucks (railroad 3X more efficient)
Quit building our homes at sea level. (Up 1000% over last 10 yrs)

Raising gasoline taxes would also help Healthcare "crisis" Last year $4/gal gasoline saved 1700 lives and billions in hospital/ rehabiltation/doctor/auto repair/road repair costs.

Good article.

Aug 20 08:28 AM

[flipdog1:]

Don't you just love tunnel vision?
The science is far from settled,we can drill here and keep our assets here, we can easily change to nat gas for big trucks and boilers,we will change to alt energy when it is naturally economical.
Have a nice day.

Aug 20 08:46 AM

[Tony Petroski:]

Mr. Mallon: You've set yourself up in one paragraph as a reasonble man, but you shoved aside a straw man.

The author:

"One, is global warming occurring? In this argument, critics attack data which is used to support the global warming thesis, e.g. do rising local temperatures reflect global warming or changes in land use? The one hundred year record of rising global ocean levels along with shrinking polar ice caps has largely settled this argument."

Translation: This debate is over and on to the next paragraph where we take policy positions on the best way to lower the ocean levels, save the polar ice caps and rescue the polar bears.

Actually there is quite a lot of new science weighing in on the "shrinking polar ice caps" an suchlike, I've read a ton of this material and it appears that debate is still open.

I take a more practical approach. If the planet is warming, wouldn't I notice that in Minnesota? In fact the last 5 years have been cooling, and the last two winters have been brutally cold and whatever was melting froze solid. Shouldn't we see the effects on the ground?

I also approach this from a policy standpoint. Let's suppose the earth is warming and we in the U.S. along with anyone else in the world we can convince to go along with us, can stop that warming and even cool things back to some "ideal" or "normal" temperature. Would the people of Minnesota agree with the people of Arizona (actually many of them are one and the same)? Would we agree that the "ideal" is to lower global temperatures by 4 degrees farenheit? 3 degrees? What would be ideal and why would I in Minnesota want things to be colder in order to save a few polar bears? You haven't thought through the politics.

I encourage you to stop publishing "global warming" stories and make the transition to "climate change." That way you can blame every "unusual" weather event on the SUV, you can take credit for saving the polar bears when they didn't need to be saved in the first place, and you can get ahead of the coming 15-year cycle of warming that is being produced by sunspot activity.

Aug 20 09:19 AM

[Fred W:]

The REAL answer is that we DON'T know the answer. But you must ask yourself, "What is the penalty for being wrong?" On one side of the coin you have the possible downside of dramatically slow economic growth and large shift toward efficiently using of resources.
On the other side of the coin you have the potential for global catastrophe and the beginning of another dark age.
There are no credit default swaps to hedge global warming--no-bail outs possible. If it happens, we are stuck with the carnage.
So, do you feel lucky?
OR are you just planning on dieing before any of the real downside risk shows up?


On Aug 20 06:00 AM Lenzie wrote:

> I thought this was supposed to be an unbiased review of the evidence,
> instead I find the patently absurd suggestion that global sea levels
> have risen. Yes sea levels have risen if you happen to be in a place
> like England which is sinking. But no they have not if you happen
> to be in a place like Scotland which is not. The only decent resume
> of all the evidence I saw, suggested that the best estimate was a
> miniscule rise which was much less than the errors involved. I.e.
> THEY COULD BE SINKING, THEY COULD BE RISING, BUT ONLY SOMEONE WHO
> DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT WOULD SAY EITHER WAY FOR
> SURE!

Aug 20 10:24 AM

[Road Runner:]

It's very old news to suggest raising the gasoline tax. Almost all economists agree that this would be a good thing to do, even without the threat of global warming. Gasoline taxes need to be higher just to pay for existing road construction. That is why there is an increase in building toll roads and converting roads into toll roads.

BUT, the reason gasoline taxes are not raised is purely politics. Gasoline taxes are one of the "third rails" of politics, touch it and you are dead. People are very irrational when it comes to the price of gasoline. There is even a linkage between the price of gasoline and the presidential approval rating - the price of gas increases and presidential approval decreases. This has been seen for years. It’s as if the right to have low gasoline prices is written in the US constitution.

Aug 20 11:03 AM

[Cjhies:]

If the world has been around thousands of years. And parts of Greenland used to be farmed(see Gården under Sandet) before evil capitalists started polluting the atmosphere with CO2.(Which is a natural compound used by plants) Then Obviously climate change is a natural occurance that happens through out history. That being said, I still feel it is important for man to conserve our natural resoures and be good stewards of the planet we inhabit.

Aug 20 11:03 AM

[bindlepete:]

I find little in this that is helpful much less illuminating. Global warming is taking place - yes - is it from man made sources? - in part at least can it be controlled by human action? - yes in part do we have the political will to do so? - I doubt it. Will it be disruptive? - very likely.

Is this a bad thing? - we don't know unless we have acceptable standards for judgement. There will be looser, there will be winners.

Now lets shoot pool.

Aug 20 11:44 AM

[Dan Powers:]

Finding a middle ground on climate change is right where we should be, but unfortunately it's an issue that seems to be as polarized as can be.

I agree 100% that gas taxes need to be raised, for both the economic and patriotic reasons mentioned above. I'd use the money to reduce payroll taxes and stimulate the economy from the bottom up.

Aug 20 12:06 PM

[Valley Boy:]

History hints that the seas have actually receded a bit over time.
Take the example of Ravenna, Italy. In the year 402, the Western Emperor Honorius moved the imperial capital to Ravenna from Milan in order to establish a more geographically secure headquarters sheltered from the invading tribes coming in from the east of Italy. Ravenna was chosen for its location amidst marshes with a seaport right on the Adriatic Sea with ready access to Constantinople for trading and political escape purposes. Ravenna was only accessible from mainland Italy via a long defensible plank. Some of the marshes were used to grow asparagus and some of the marshes were used for defensive purposes. In the year 2009, Ravenna is located five miles inland from the Adriatic Sea and is surrounded by vineyards farmed on dry land. The city has access to the Adriatic Sea with a canal and small harbor located seven miles northeast of the city.
That does not sound like human-caused rising seas.

Aug 20 12:40 PM

[La Marque:]

An ok article as far as raising gas taxes. We should do it. A clause preventing Congress from increasing spending would definitely be needed.

As far as co2 is concerned, we are putting more into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. A few years ago, I saw an infrared satellite photo of Chicagoland taken in the 1960s compared to one taken in 2000. The area irradiating heat more than tripled in less than 40 years. Where we go generates heat.

Cleaning up the planet's air should allow more solatons (sunlight) to reach the surface and also have less clouds to trap the heat in the atmosphere. Studies are showing that the Alps are having warmer days and cooler nights lately.

Aug 20 12:47 PM

[john s. gordon:]

if you are an aircraft pilot you know that it's cooler at altitude in the daytime (in the mountains) because of the adiabatic lapse rate,
above 40000 feet it is -65 deg F. on a clear night when the ground surface is freely radiating to space the lower atmosphere (200 feet or so) becomes cooler than the air above, forming an inversion which traps pollutants.
so ravenna is rising but venice is in danger of submersion. have you been to venice when the piazza san marco is having canoe races with 2 feet of water?
part of the global climate change picture is the weather becomes more violent. so, your homeowners insurance premium has to rise, especially in FL.
> jack

Aug 20 01:12 PM

[Valley Boy:]

There was a good article about Venice in the August National Geographic. It seems that the city is sinking under its own weight.
There does not seem to be any good solutions.


On Aug 20 01:12 PM john s. gordon wrote:

> if you are an aircraft pilot you know that it's cooler at altitude
> in the daytime (in the mountains) because of the adiabatic lapse
> rate,
> above 40000 feet it is -65 deg F. on a clear night when the ground
> surface is freely radiating to space the lower atmosphere (200 feet
> or so) becomes cooler than the air above, forming an inversion which
> traps pollutants.
> so ravenna is rising but venice is in danger of submersion. have
> you been to venice when the piazza san marco is having canoe races
> with 2 feet of water?
> part of the global climate change picture is the weather becomes
> more violent. so, your homeowners insurance premium has to rise,
> especially in FL.

Aug 20 02:02 PM

[Road Runner:]

A smart way to raise the federal gasoline tax is to pass a law that says the tax will increase by $0.10 each year for 10 years. At the end of 10 years, the gasoline tax will be $1.00 higher.

This would work better than a one time $1.00 increase because it would give people time to adjust their purchases of vehicles. It would make a clear statement that the price of gasoline will be higher in the future than it is today, so car buyers will be more concerned about mileage when they buy.

This approach may actually help keep the overall price of gasoline from rising the full $1.00. If people buy more efficient vehicles in anticipation of higher gas prices, then gasoline demand will probably fall leading to a lower before-tax price of gasoline.

But, this solution is almost surely politically dead before it can even get proposed, because it immediately puts the “fear” of higher gas prices in people’s minds but delays the revenue from it. I can’t imagine any congress-person wanting to anger people up-front, but not get the money to spend while they are in office.

Aug 20 02:22 PM

[concrete guy:]

Too may people today have signed off on the notion of AGW. The science is far from settled, and in fact, NOAA's own data for years 2000 through 2008 show average atmospheric and oceanic temperatures decreasing. In 2008 arctic sea ice extent returned to 1979 levels, and antarctic ice levels reaches a record. In light of this well-documented decade-long global cooling trend, I'm hoping it won't be long before the majority of Americans look back in amazement at how foolish the contrived AGW scare really was.

Aug 20 05:27 PM

[Turnipseed:]

NOAA doesn't agree the earth is cooling.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/c...

Arctic sea ice extent second smallest ever in 2008.
nsidc.org/pubs/notes/6...

Antarctic sea ice is expanding, but voume of ice sheet may be contracting - more data needed.
www.skepticalscience.c...

So the 10 hottest years have occurred between 1997 and 2008 - sound like a cooling trend?

On Aug 20 05:27 PM concrete guy wrote:

> Too may people today have signed off on the notion of AGW. The science
> is far from settled, and in fact, NOAA's own data for years 2000
> through 2008 show average atmospheric and oceanic temperatures decreasing.
> In 2008 arctic sea ice extent returned to 1979 levels, and antarctic
> ice levels reaches a record. In light of this well-documented decade-long
> global cooling trend, I'm hoping it won't be long before the majority
> of Americans look back in amazement at how foolish the contrived
> AGW scare really was.

Aug 20 07:44 PM

[WayneS:]

I always get a lot of "negative comment"s when I suggest conservation. It saves the consumer money, but then no one can make money off of the consumer with their product that will save the Earth (and line their pockets).

Aug 21 11:43 AM

[danno:]

First smart blog I've seen in a long time (not that day traders would ever know the difference).

Aug 24 12:17 AM

[Wildhawk:]

The closet environmentalist in me feels the need to decry the effects of global warming, but I realize that the science is just not clear, and may never be. The earth does seem to go through natural warming and cooling cycles, and while we may impact that at the margins via human activity, it's lunacy to suggest we can control the outcome through our actions.

That having been said, it's clear to anyone who cares to look that we are squandering our natural resources. The calls to simply drill more on US territory miss the point: our natural resources are finite and we're burning through them (literally) now at a faster rate than ever before. Regardless of what resource to which you refer, ultimately they are going to run out, and possibly in our lifetimes for some resources. To me, that says it's incumbent upon us to conserve and find ways to do as much as we can to recycle what's used into something usable again and spend aggressively on research into renewable sources of energy (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc.). It doesn't mean we stop using what natural resources we have, especially here in the US, but anything we can do to slow the pace of that usage is something we should be pursuing wholeheartedly.

It's good for the human race broadly because it makes our planet a safer and more enjoyable place to live, and is good for Americans specifically because we would have to rely less on foreign sources of energy (e.g. oil).

Aug 26 01:59 PM

[WayneS:]

Be careful Fred. This has been Exxon's take on "Global Warming" since 1985 and they were vilified for it.


On Aug 20 10:24 AM Fred W wrote:

> The REAL answer is that we DON'T know the answer. But you must ask
> yourself, "What is the penalty for being wrong?" On one side of the
> coin you have the possible downside of dramatically slow economic
> growth and large shift toward efficiently using of resources.
> On the other side of the coin you have the potential for global catastrophe
> and the beginning of another dark age.
> There are no credit default swaps to hedge global warming--no-bail
> outs possible. If it happens, we are stuck with the carnage.
> So, do you feel lucky?
> OR are you just planning on dieing before any of the real downside
> risk shows up?

Sep 03 02:03 PM