JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Carbon Tax Australia? Welcome to Futility Island

Assume the IPCC is right. Assume that Australia would have kept emitting the same proportion of global emissions of CO2 for the next four decades — despite the rapid catch up in emissions-per-capita as the developing world gets cars, frozen foods, and holidays-in-Bali. Then assume somehow, theoretically, we might be able to completely stop emissions of CO2 suddenly (by Tuesday). What’s the most generous possibility of success we could get from massive Australian sacrifice and green action now? Answer: Tops, absolutely as high as it gets, exceeding beyond our wildest expectations — if Australia stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we could save … 15 thousandths of one degree of warming (0.0154 °C) by 2050. Spiffy eh?

David has done the number crunching that we’re “sure” the ALP has done many many times as they redirect billions of Australian dollars in search of a world that’s immeasurably (and un-measurably) cooler. — JN

CARBON TAX AND TEMPERATURE

Dr. David Evans, 14 March 2011

BY HOW MUCH WILL A CARBON DIOXIDE TAX REDUCE AUSTRALIA’S TEMPERATURE?

Suppose Australia reduced its emissions over what they would otherwise be. The effect, according to the IPCC’s theory of man-made global warming, is:

Average reduction in Australia’s emissions from now to 2050 Decrease in the temperature in 2050 due to Australia’s reductions
0 % 0.0000 °C
5 % 0.0007 °C
10 % 0.0015 °C
20 % 0.0031 °C
50 % 0.0077 °C
100 % 0.0154 °C

Notice that if Australia shut down entirely, and emitted no CO2 starting today, it would lower the temperature in 2050 by just 0.0154 °C (on IPCC figures).
The effect of a carbon tax on Australia’s carbon emissions is unknown, but is probably small given the small effect of petrol price increases on petrol usage.

Calculations: In this short PDF (warning: contains equations).

Skeptics say: The climate establishment have made numerous exaggerations. The temperature increase due to increased carbon dioxide levels is about one tenth of what the IPCC say. A CO2 level of 507 ppm in 2050, up from the current 390 ppm (parts per million, that is, 0.039%) (generously allowing for 50% higher carbon level growth than current), would raise temperatures by about 0.12°C, which is not worth doing much about.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.
Website: sciencespeak.com
The climate establishment is exaggerating and cheating: Climate Corruption
Inquiries to david.evans AT sciencespeak.com.

* The 2mm sea level rise calculation is from this similar post (which used different calculations) Shut down Australia and save 0.01 degrees.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.8/10 (6 votes cast)
Carbon Tax Australia? Welcome to Futility Island, 7.8 out of 10 based on 6 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4r473eh

263 comments to Carbon Tax Australia? Welcome to Futility Island

  • #
    chris

    The reality is worse, given that the net result is to close well regulated factories in “western” countries and give credits and the work to China it actually make CO2 emissions a lot worse, there is a chart that gives CO2 output against % of worlds GNP, China produce something like 3 times more CO2 for a given output compared to the USA


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Given we have a tax payer funded propaganda campaign headed our way, I so wish the real numbers could be put in front of the Australian people via the mainstream papers!

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/labor-has-a-carbon-tax-ad-plan-ready-for-rollout-foi-documents-show/story-fn59niix-1226020908538


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Thanks David Evans – I hope I can raise this point tonight at the Perth presentation of the Green Wet Dream Beyond Zero Emissions crew. They want us to spend $370 billion to create this massive temperature reduction.

    BTW for those that missed Greg Combet saying “pollution” 13 times in the short interview with Laurie Oakes on Saturday morning (Ch9) here is the transcript:

    http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=892:climate-change-minister-combet-talked-with-laurie-oakes-on-channel-9-&catid=36:news&Itemid=74

    Here is the Obama video link again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    I havenoted that since David stopped being a warmist and started being a sceptic he likewise stopped being a hero of the warmers and his qualifications became less authoritative. A warmist commentator replying to a david Evans quote claimed he had been discredited. Discredited by the faithful.

    David makes a great deal of sense and his caculations are based on IPCC, and no doubt peer reviewed, information. How will Combet and Co generate a bigger number? They will avoid the number and appeal to our love of children.

    After seeing the reaction by the left to Andrew Bolts appearance on Insiders yesterday it is obvious they follow the old communist maxim of the end justifies the means. Facts don’t count but perceptions do.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Thanks David, but it get’s a lot worse because everyone keeps attributing concern by our govt about the increase in global co2 emissions and that is a total lie.

    If the govt was really concerned about the increase of co2 they would ban coal exports immediately but instead they are trying to increase exports as fast as possible.

    They are hypocrites and fraudsters or they suffer a collective bi-polar disorder and therefore shouldn’t be in power at all.

    Rudd, Wong, Gillard, Gore, Suzuki etc told us this was the greatest moral challenge we faced, but now we know they are liars and fraudsters or suffer from a mental disorder.

    Their very actions and policies will indeed lead to higher and higher emissions of co2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jack Taylor

    It is imperative for the IPCC to redistribute wealth to 3rd World countries so they can embrace renewable energies that will still fall short of their needs. Has anyone with any experience of capitalism thought this through? The cost of doing business will become so expensive in countries like Australia and in W. Europe, that the manufacturing industries will flock to China, India and friendly 3rd World countries. The environmental legislation in some of these countries just doesn’t exist. In order to protect the environment of these countries, does the IPCC become ever bigger and ever more encompassing on other forms of “pollution”? Doesn’t seem to worry the Labor Party, or the US Democrats. Fortunately, the Republicans do a better job than the Liberals and Nationals at putting some restraints on their country’s madness.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Neville @ 5:

    Government policy is DESIGNED to fail. That way they can say they didn’t do enough so as to justify doing what failed all the more. Carbon taxes don’t work? They weren’t high enough. Increase the taxes until they do! If that doesn’t work, hold hearings, blame capitalism, increase regulation and oversight of the economy, and raise taxes still more.

    All governments do this as long as they can get away with it. Unfortunately, about the only way they stop is if there is a total collapse of the economy and an almost total destruction of civilization.

    That’s simply what Governments do and have done since the first government was formed. They are ALL true to type. The only thing that differs among them is the speed at which they drive toward the final collapse.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Jack Taylor:

    Lest we forget I think the stat was that the entire Rainbow Coalition Cabinet only has about 2 years real world experience between them. They are all union lawyers, execs, and political lifers… they’ve never been in a position of being accountable for real businesses.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rodzki

    Radio station 96.5FM in Brisbane last night hosted a lengthy interview with Prof Bob Carter from JCU, on climate change alarmism. This topic of how much we might reduce the Earth’s temperature by killing Australia’s economy was one of the topics discussed.

    Part 1 of the interview is at this link – Bob Carter on climate change Part 1.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Lionel their line of BS is to con the Aussie electorate that they are the people who care about CAGW and therefore carbon pollution ( more BS )but their actions prove they don’t care at all.

    It is a con otherwise they would stop exporting coal tomorrow.
    This is the message everyone should be throwing back at them, are they fair dinkum or are they bare faced liars.

    If they cared about carbon pollution ( as they call it) this would be the most obvious action they could take.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I don’t know if it’s useful to anyone down there, but I’m working in support of a US state (New Hampshire) and its attempts to pull out out the Regional Green Gas initiative. See my web page at
    http://wermenh.com/rggiwatch and feel free to use anything from it if it’s useful.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Hardly seems worth it does it?

    Maybe OZ could coat-tail NZ’s ETS, it’s already having a remarkable decelerating effect on global temperature, sea levels, ocean heat content etc.

    Or maybe it’s not our ETS and just natural climate drivers instead. I’ve compiled a linked list of papers and articles documenting same accessible here:-

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eNnA4UAEwc6gpqCC9_Rh4y9B4lcly5TtDMEG30-77uY/edit?hl=en&pli=1

    Features among others: Landscheidt, Scafetta, Abdussamatov, Akasofu, Kirkby, Shaviv, Svensmark, Fris-Christensen and last but not least Mclean, de Freitas and Carter i.e. all the names that government climate change advisers the world over have never heard of.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Tell you what.

    I have lots of contacts in China, India, South Korea, et cetera.

    I reckon I could transfer Aussie jobs to those places for a fraction of what this tax will cost you. Save you a bundle, that would. What d’ya reckon? You won’t get a better bargain.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Ric #11

    CO2 emissions seem very reasonable in the US northeast @ $1.89 per ton.

    I note the price was supposed to be up around US$12 but markets can be fickle. A pity we in NZ are not paying just a couple of bucks, the current price is arbitrarily set at NZ$12.50 for some and soon to rise to NZ$25 for all. I’ve seen the figure of AU$45 in the OZ “carbon” tax debate.

    Strange how the value of “carbon” is so variable globally but 2 bucks sounds about right to me.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Richard are you being compensated in NZ for the tax or not and is it on fuel, gas etc as well?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Source. Eco World Content From Across The Internet. Featured on EcoPressed What's Next For Wind? This entry was posted in Australian Politics, Environment, NZ Politics. Bookmark the permalink. ← CNN Inadvertently Exposes Cold Hard Truth of Cultural Differences- Japan and Katrina [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    While everyone is concerned about the fallout from the nuclear power plant in Japan, the problem with fallout from coal combustion should also be recognised.

    “An unrecognised problem is the gradual production of plutonium-239 through the exposure of uranium-238 in coal waste to neutrons from the air………”

    Source: http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Geoff Larsen

    Chris

    “The reality is worse, given that the net result is to close well regulated factories in “western” countries and give credits and the work to China it actually make CO2 emissions a lot worse, there is a chart that gives CO2 output against % of worlds GNP, China produce something like 3 times more CO2 for a given output compared to the USA”.

    Agreed and given the huge populations of China & India, as these countries ramp up their per capita GDP their growth in emissions will dwarf those of the developed countries (even assuming China achieves its objective of 4% decrease pa in emissions intensity). See the linked video “Climate Change & Energy”, by Richard A Muller, UC Berkeley, Prof. of Physics (ret). Go to 8.10 minutes in this video for the chart which shows this vividly. In 2040, around the time developing nations, in this scenario, start to reduce their emissions, their total emissions of around 90 B tonnes eclipse those of the developed countries of around 7 B tonnes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Watt

    The ln(C/C0) factor attributed to the IPCC view of the impact of increased CO2 concentration looks suspiciously like something from the Arrhenius hypothesis from the late 1890′s…this can’t be right. We have learnt nothing more about the behaviour of CO2 in the past 120 years? John Nicol’s 2008/2010 paper throws no new light on this question? Time to get real guys! Good work in showing that the IPCC formula leads to a harmless result BUT we do need to shift the discussion of the physics on by a century or so. Simply put if CO2 is the problem then the appropriate experts are CO2 experts not climatologists/mathematicians using an 1890′s model of CO2′s behaviour. Where are our CO2 experts? BoM and CSIRO don’t seem to have any. The ABC and various politicians can’t find any. Seems like there’s a Nobel Prize out there for someone with the scientific and communication skills necessary to save us from the folly/embarrassment of the carbon tax.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    See Willis’s post at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/13/how-much-would-you-buy/

    for another estimate of “How much cost for how much temperature reduction”?

    Quote

    “That gets us to where we can make the final calculation …

    US$7 trillion divided by 0.00375°C gives us … wait for it …

    US$1,900 trillion dollars for each measly degree of cooling.

    I’ve heard of air conditioners that were expensive to run, but that’s gotta take the cake, almost two quadrillion dollars running cost per degree of cooling …”

    And see his description of a trillion dollars at the bottom of the post


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Neville #16

    are you being compensated in NZ for the tax or not?

    No public compensation, although there is a free allocation to industry that progressively decreases out to 2050 but it is potentially a huge cost to government. The ETS is being reviewed at present so that might change.

    There’s a good essay linked below that addresses and details free allocation of ETS units by policy analyst Dr Christina Hood that includes a case study of a cement producer:-

    Free Allocation in the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme A Critical Analysis

    is it on fuel, gas etc as well?

    You betcha, even on geothermal energy believe it or not. If you are a customer of an electricity company (you can change) that is largely hydro and wind then the ETS is avoided. The charge (not a tax according to govt) is not shown on electricity accounts, petrol receipts etc so the average consumer hasn’t got a clue what they are paying towards the ETS and with free allocation to industry and $12.50 it’s relatively painless for the public at the moment but starting to bite some industrials.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    The real problems is that the even sceptics aren’t very sceptical. The entire idea of greenhouse gases is
    patently absurd with no basis in either physics or chemistry. It makes no difference to the climate whether CO2 levels are 100ppm or 10,000ppm.

    The atmospheric temperature is controlled by overwhelmingly the “Bathtub Effect” – the transfer of latent heat via evaporation and condensation – not by the imaginary heat retaining properties of a magical gas (CO2).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Neville et al

    An example of NZ ETS costs

    Pacifica Shipping, Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and Levy

    From 1 July, 2010, Pacifica Shipping added an ETS Levy to its freight rates to cover the cost of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) imposed on domestic transport operators. It is important to note the Levy is applied in accordance with New Zealand statutory provisions of the ETS

    Using the capped $25 rate for example, Pacifica’s obligations would be calculated as follows:

    Fuel Type Carbon Credit Cost CO2 Emissions Obligation per MT
    _______________(Per MT)_________Factor__________(Less 50%)
    Diesel___________$25.00__________2.670___________$33.38

    HFO Fuel Oil______$25.00__________3.015___________$37.69

    Pacifica has calculated its ETS Levy by multiplying actual fuel tonnage usage by the ETS obligations per tonne as above, then dividing by the number of TEUs moved.

    Currently the ETS Levy added by Pacifica is $6 per TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit), based on the $25 New Zealand unit price.

    http://www.pacship.co.nz/page1111659.aspx?print=Y

    Note that Pacifica Shipping pays the full $25 price, not the $12.50 half price limited time offer that some operators qualify for. One container ship might carry 4500 TEU’s (I think) so that’s $27,000, about the same as port fees for the ship (I think).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Just did a bit of a Google and came across this web site criticising the BZE mob:

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

    Just skimming through it looks like a thorough dissection (execution more like) of the naive presentation I am likely to see tonight.

    [editor note BZE is Beyond Zero Emissions] ED


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re #23 Oops, looks like Pacifica are getting the 50% discount, sorry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Bulldust; that is correct; Lang has done a number of critiques of BZE who are a bunch of eco-spivs; the prominent members of BZE are regular contributors to Unleashed and peddle their scurrilous rubbish through the msm generally.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    if BZE burn the wheat stubble as they propose as their backup for cloudy days and windless days one of Australia’s greatest inventions will go down the drain.

    I refer you to the New Inventors winner Durrapanel which is now probably the most successful alternative building products ever created. It lines the ceilings of all our massive stadia.

    http://www.ortech.com.au/durra/durrapanel.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    re: John Watt:
    March 14th, 2011 at 4:45 pm comment 22

    The ln(C/C0) factor attributed to the IPCC view of the impact of increased CO2 concentration looks suspiciously like something from the Arrhenius hypothesis from the late 1890′s…this can’t be right. We have learnt nothing more about the behaviour of CO2 in the past 120 years?

    Arrhenius’ work was disproved almost immediately by physicist and atmospheric radiation expert Knut Angstrom – a fact that the Warmists conveniently overlook.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    How many times have I tried to get you guys to Bravenewclimate? Oh no it’s just MattB resident warmista.

    Bulldust you would equally enjoy the coverage the site is giving the Japanese nukes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    The junk science behind Minchin’s climate change denial

    395 Comments

    still not there Cohenite!! It’s so frustrating isn’t it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Matt @29 quite agree top site.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    The junk science behind Minchin’s climate change denial

    415 Comments

    still not there Cohenite!! It’s so frustrating isn’t it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Yeah janama, I tried twice, cutting out the links in the 2nd attempt; it is a dreadful article though; I hope Spencer does a post at this blog on it, although that would be dignifying it far beyond its worth.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    I was going to suggest to Dr Spencer that he needs a lawyer to defend himself from this tirade of ignorant abuse.

    guess who I had in mind ;)

    :) :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Wildly OT, but Chiefio has a brilliant thread going on the Japanese nuclear plants.
    Great knowledgable posters and plenty of very informative links.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Timdot

    Hey everyone.

    Good to see the trolls are trying their best to skew the comments, this time with posts about nuclear. Dellers has a good article on it.

    “Nuclear fatalities in the last ten years: 7

    Wind farm fatalities in the last ten years: 44.”

    And those statistics don’t include birds, when the giant meat cleavers would win feathers-down on the amount of red-blooded animals killed.

    Oh, and it looks like the nuke facilities are stable now…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Get ready for “phase 2″ of the Australian Government’s propaganda push on its carbon (dioxide) tax. As you may have heard the government plans to spend AUD 30 Million or so on ‘advertising’ to explain to the Australian people why it’s good to have a carbon (dioxide) tax. No doubt this ‘advertising’ will focus on the compensation planned for low income earners, pensioners and so on to offset increased costs as result of any Carbon (dioxide) tax. Greg Combet (Australian Climate Change minister) says proceeds of the Carbon (dioxide) tax will be 100% returned in compensation to the aforementioned groups. But what they fail to mention is:

    a) How government bureaucracy will absorb much of any tax collected before it can be redistributed as ‘compensation’.
    b) That 10% of this tax the government plans to give to the UN (not 100% certain on this point).
    c) What is the projected economic cost of reduced Australian international competitiveness through adopting this tax ahead of our trading partners and competitors and thus pushing production emissions into other countries with no such tax?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William Wallace

    Here is a Very Enlightening article about this character “Barry Brook” who runs this PRO GLOBAL WARMING WEBSITE “Bravenewclimate”

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cant_brook_barry/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William Wallace

    Cookster@37, I believe that the following is a reference to the $30 million dollars of taxpayer funds that was originally allocated for this despicable advertising by rudd…

    $30 million to tell more warming lies:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudd_spends_30_million_to_tell_more_lies/asc/#commentsmore


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Gallon

    [sarc} Look, it's obvious Because we're leading the way, everyone else will follow, so our little reduction will be matched by every other country throughout the world and thus everyone will live happily ever after.[/sarc]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    How does the carbon tax reduce carbon emissions?

    So far I have yet to see it.
    Incentives for new technology has many restrictions and hoops to go through that are too expensive unless it is a big company that can absorb it. This recession has pretty much killed off research and development along with all the new government environmental studies.

    Have you ever heard of technology so efficient, that what hemisphere it is in can make a difference in the power production?
    It is due to the circular motion difference in each hemisphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    The junk science behind Minchin’s climate change denial

    473 Comments

    still not there Cohenite!! It’s so frustrating isn’t it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Dr Spencer’s site:

    janama says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    March 14, 2011 at 5:56 AM

    janama@157; I hope Spencer responds to Bickmore; his article is egregious; my comment submitted to Unleashed is this:

    “Professor Bickmore says he has revealed the flaws in Spencer and Braswell [2008]; in fact a more substantial critique was done by Murphy and Foster [2010] Spencer replies to Murphy and Foster here:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/can-climate-feedbacks-be-diagnosed-from-satellite-data-comments-on-the-murphy-forster-2010-critique-of-spencer-braswell-2008/#comments

    The substance of Spencer’s above comments were incorporated into Spencer and Braswell [2010] which Bickmore has apparently not looked at:

    http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/spencer-braswell-jgr-20101.pdf

    Bickmore says that Spencer achieves much lower findings for climate sensitivity than the IPCC because he “was willing to use absurd values for some of his model parameters.”

    This is quite incorrect. Spencer used stock standard CERES satellite and HadCRUT radiation and temperature data; that official data was put through his model with the results compared with the output of the official AR4 coupled models; Spencer’s model gave a far better fit with the actual data.

    This article is unfair and misleading. I gather Dr Spencer has been notified. I hope he responds.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    What is really needed is for the opposing parties and for the media to drive these questions home to the Labor party. There’s no way the ALP is ever going to come up with reasonable responses, and they’ll have to fold on the policy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    janama; it got up, sans links; I think the ABC system chews up comments with links which is regrettable.

    On David’s post, he is being conservative with an official CS figure for AGW of 3.3C; actually it is 3.26C:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5.html

    Which means the benefit [sic] for the pain is even less.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Cohenite – I can’t find it with or without links.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baron

    One other poitn about this – 0.0007 degrees is actually the same as one day out of each year being 0.25 degrees warmer. If anyone or anything could notice that change I’d be astonished.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust in #25 – did you get along… at about 5:45 in the end I decided I had better things to do with my one free evening this week. I did just see Dr karl on ABC24 The Drum tell me that BZE would deliver 100% renewables at 33% the cost of just using coal…. wow just wow…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Jo, you need to modify your opening intro:

    “if Australia stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we could save …”

    Dr Evan’s calcs are based on today’s 390ppm CO2, so Australia just has to maintain its current CO2 emissions to qualify for the 0.0154°C global reduction (100% reduction of our share of the 2050 increase).

    It is an interesting calculation exercise though. If everyone on the planet reduced 2050′s CO2 increase by 20% then we get a 0.216°C reduction, or if by 50% then 0.574°C reduction. Of course this assumes IPCC’s value of 3.3°C CO2 sensitivity with a 2050 CO2 of 507ppm. David advocates 0.33°C sensitivity, which requires a major negative feedback to direct warming, but that’s another whole story.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I got along to the presentations. The chap from SEN WA (Sustainable Energy Now – WA) was boring as a box of blunt butterknives, the chap from ZCA was very polished and glib, and then there were the politicians pushing the generic wheelbarrows.

    The standout (for all the wrong reasons) was McTiernan who Godwined herself, I kid you not. She said that the current times were reminiscent of the 1930s where fascists were rising and much of the population were being apologists and saying it was nothing to worry about. She was shrill and painful to listen to. How this woman was badged one of Labor’s top achievers is beyond me, because she was completely irrational.

    There was not a single hard question put – most were Dorothy Dix’s and I was too intimidated by all the tie-dye shirts and dreadlocks in the crowd to ask about David Evan’s question or the like … would have been a pointless exercise with that crowd.

    The ironic thing is… McTiernan is right but for the wrong reasons. The sceptics are not the fascist apologists… we are the ones questioning the dogma, not rolling along with it. That irony would be completely lost on her.

    The blue shirt youth (brown shirts are sooo pre WWII) were there as well (Australian Youth Climate Coalition) and rest assured there will be protest marches whenever carbon price advocates come to town. They are organised in a way sceptics can’t begin to emulate, because we have real lives, jobs and families… they are mostly uni-aged youths with an agenda to save the planet.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    cohenite @ 27:
    I am not so harsh… they are simply doing what Adam Smith would expect. They are rent-seekers, which is to say, out to make a buck. I know how to deal with people like that because they are predictable… it is the eco-zealots that frighten me because they have all the rationality of a jihadist.

    The best presentation was the chap from Prof Paul Hardisty or Worley Parsons. At least he was saying that protagonists of renewables need to be honest, transparent and present a proper business case. Sadly the business case presented by ZCA is woefully lacking, as demonstrated by site like the one I linked in post number 25.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:

    Entertaining as Dr Karl can be I realise he has started to overstep his bounds more and more lately. He is the type of intellectual Prof Sowell was thinking of when slagging off people outside their fields of expertise. I am sure Dr Karl has a formidable mind, much like Dr Kaku, but when they stray into unfamiliar territory like climate change they inevitably make fools of themselves.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    cohenite@46:

    janama; it got up, sans links; I think the ABC system chews up comments with links which is regrettable.

    I don’t think so, I’ve gotten links through and seen plenty others on the site. There could be an issue with putting a hash in the link(suspected XSS Attack) so, keep your eyes peeled for hashes in comment links to nullify the hypothesis(read and learn my fellow climate scientists). If this is the case then it’s some pretty embarrassing regex work by developers.

    Speaking of nullifying hypotheses, this post is a doosey. I haven’t had time to check the numbers myself. I’m busy, not lazy. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #

    MattB: I did just see Dr karl on ABC24 The Drum tell me that BZE would deliver 100% renewables at 33% the cost of just using coal…. wow just wow…

    Fantastic! What are we waiting for? Where are one of these operations working? Can we visit? Can we buy shares. It must be making a killer profit.

    In fact the profits will be so handsome, they won’t need subsidies either eh — the carbon tax will be a moot point, I mean, who needs to tax the competition if BZE is better and cheaper than coal?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Oh noes… Jo don’t blow the life savings!

    Remember BZE said that their renewables are currently four times the cost of the cheapest coal-fired electricity generators. They want a $200 per tonne “carbon price” to be competitive (yes, that is abuse of the term competitive as I understand it…)

    Hope you haven’t invested the family savings yet… thankfully the markets are closed in Oz ATM.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Jo, You beat me to the punch.

    The problem with BZE is that they have no sense of proportion. They are orders of magnitude off the mark unless they want to devastate the environment for their profit and enslave the willing planet savers to dust the mirrors, to scrape the bird droppings off everything, to weed the concreted bases of the square kilometres of reflectors and to chase the bugs and small animals off the structure.

    Their dirty secret is that the BZE will only supply the energy for a de-industrialised Australia. In which case, such things can’t be built domestically, operated by locals, nor paid for by the subsistence economy that remains.

    Bulldust was wise not to be a heretic in the cathedral. Unless he wants to reprise the actions of somebody reputed to have chucked the merchants out of the temple.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Tony Abbott deserves some praise for having the courage today to publicly say CO2 may not be such a villain after all (refer link). Disappointing that Greg Combet still feels it’s acceptable to use the ‘denier’ tag.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-dioxide-not-the-bad-guy-says-abbott-20110314-1bul3.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Rodzki @ 9

    Professor Bob Carter has an excellent article, Ten Little Facts, at IceCap dated 13/3/11, targeting recent statements by some of our political “leaders” on Global Warming and Carbon Tax.

    An easily read completely understandable rebuttal, ideal for showing to those who haven’t made up their minds about the tax. http://www.icecap.us/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Whilst at IceCap, check the 8 question poll conducted by the journal “Scientific American”.

    7,028 responded and to a multiple choice “Is the IPCC………..’a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda’ over 83% answered YES!
    http://www.icecap.us/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Bulldust @53

    It is interesting that Dr Karl should faithfully man the CAGW ramparts. I heard an interview with him on “conversations” where he described how he belatedly heard his parent’s WW2 history of persecution & survival.

    This whole AGW agenda would largely appear to have grown from the Strong/UN Agenda 21. To me comparisons can be drawn to the “New World Order Paradigm” which gave meaning & hope to German population suffering the deprivations of the Treaty of Versailles. You have a powerful elite with the capacity to manipulate & deliver information with authority, you have an un-informed, impressionable populace & you have a “creditable” scapegoat.

    They got in early with the “Denier” tag though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Llew Jones

    Cookster@58

    Seems to be very smart politics on Abbott’s part. Raising just enough doubt about the significance of human CO2 emissions to keep the polls moving slowly along the path of skepticism on scientific grounds. Thus a bit hard to brand him a crank as the hopeless Combet tries. A nice attack balance between a tax that will hurt with a touch of incipient skepticism that, eventually, could mean a much better energy policy in place of the disaster that the ALP seems intent on imposing on Australians.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Maybe reality is dawning on some of the coalition recalcitrants and Abbott feels more confident as a result. Re the “d” word; I couldn’t give a damn what names the “carbonista” calls me. Sticks and stones…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Encouraging stuff by Abbott. I remember when he gained the leadership in the wake of the first push for an ETS I decided to check out his website and read a few of his press releases. I was surprised to find that his actual policy positions didn’t fit with the media cariacature, you know, that of a conservative, religious, 1950′s white-australia inspired morality. The real irony was that this “convservative” was far less interested in moral impositions on the public than his “progressive” counterparts on the other side of politics who at the time had been introducing all sorts of punitive taxes designed (ha!) to modify public behaviour for the “better” (alcopops/tobacco/carbon). His detractors still insist on confusing Abbott with his cartoon like depiction as a victorian era robber-baron. Of course, he has shown some willingness to use large scale government intervention (mat leave), that seems inconsistent to me.

    I can’t figure out Turnbull’s popularity in the polls, are self-identified conservatives in Australia for smaller, limited government, or not?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Janama@47; it got up under my alter ego. I take Waffle’s point @54 about the limitations of the Unleashed screening for links and when I deactivate them they do get through.

    Bezond Zero Emissions [BZE] are the leading ‘private’ promotor of wind and solar power in Australia; they are continually taken to task by Barry Brooks, a warmist, who has a standing challenge to BZE to respond to his critiques:

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/

    BZE have not responded to Brook’s challenge. Spokespersons for BZE feature regularly ar Unleashed; check the contributors’ names for Matthew Wright and Leigh Ewbank.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I heard somewhere on the passion fruit vine that Monckton will be touring Australia in June/July.

    I also heard that there is a multi-million dollar fighting fund to counter the expected government advertising on the CO2 tax.

    Just rumours, mind you…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Watt

    What I find disturbing is the lack of courage in our media presenters to question Gillard,Combet et al about the foundations of their “belief” that carbon is the villain. Has it been a master stroke by the “believers” to portray an opinion as a “belief” secure in the knowledge that in the current epidemic of political correctness no one questions “beliefs” in public? ABC and Sky presenters in particular display this inability to ask what is a very straightforward question. Tony Jones had the opportunity with the PM last night. Kieran Gilbert had the same opportunity with Craig Emmerson this morning. Both took their eye off the ball.

    Presenters seem capable of exploring detail when it involves St Kilda,Fevola,Sheen or Assange but lose that ability when confronted with an AGW “believer”!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    Ten little facts video on youtube for those not inclined to read:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX3BNncSS00


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    MattB: #30 & Timdot: #37

    Yes this is definitely off-topic, but I just couldn’t let it pass without comment. You see, MattB is right (this time).

    The article he refers to at #30 is a primer on how nuclear reactors work, and how the operators handle incidents like the one in Fukushima. In my view it is very balanced. It seem that BraveNewClimate is not just another warmist site, but one that supports nuclear.

    Say what? That must really tie the Greens in knots!

    If you don’t want to give traffic to Barry Brook, you can also reference it via another article that goes through the International Atomic Energy Agency incident report item by item, also at a readable level. That is at: http://extrinsic.blog.com/2011/03/1511/japan-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-incident/. The two articles come at it from different angles, and are both worth a read.

    Well done, Matt.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Wow, I point out a correction for Jo @ 50 and no one here even bats an eyelid?

    Jo mistakenly stated in the intro that Australia would have to cease ALL CO2 emission to provide the 0.0154°C global reduction. Australia only needs to maintain its current emissions to achieve this using David’s calcs.

    Surely you don’t think I’m being pedantic over what is likely an honest but significant mistake?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob of Castlemaine

    R.I.P. Australia 1788 – 2012


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Re Mr Turnbull, I’m not the only one who finds it puzzling:

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/allan/2011/03/first-instincts


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Matt B @ 30 and Rereke @ 70

    From Matt’s “tip’ I also went to the Bravenewclimate site. I agree with Rereke that the threads on the Japanese nuclear power plant problems are great but looking around the rest of the site , sorry MattB I’m far from impressed


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Jo in 55 I do hope it was clear from my post that I agree with you… apparently BZE forced themselves to use commercially available equipment, like those solar thermal molten salt units you see all over the place in Europe;) Apparently their base unit is 16 times larger than the largest demonstration plant ever built;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Sharky:

    Fair point – Jo probably ommitted a word or two. Instead of:

    Then assume somehow, theoretically, we might be able to completely stop emissions of CO2 suddenly…

    It should read:

    Then assume somehow, theoretically, we might be able to completely stop the growth of emissions of CO2 suddenly …

    The point is still pertinent. The other place would be:

    …if Australia stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow…

    should read:

    …if Australia stopped increasing CO2 emissions tomorrow…

    There fixed it. I think you may find Jo is still on leave and hence the lack of direcft involvement in the posts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB:
    Yes this is one of the aspects of the BZE presentations I found quite humorous. They made a big song and dance about this being proven technologies available today… I don’t call a technology which only exists in small scale plants (mostly 10-20MW) commercially proven by a long stratch. They were asking Australia to take a massive leap of faith on this unproven (commercially) technology, and not only that, be the early adopters in the hope that installation costs would fall drastically during the roll out.

    I could go on and on about the unrealistic assumptions in their reports, but the stuff was like manna from heaven for the assembled Greens fanatics in the room. One T-shirt read unf*ck the planet … pretty much describes the mindset of the type that was there on the night. These people want so desperately to be part of a noble cause.

    But as I said before… the bitterest aftertaste was left by McTiernan … her rant was disgusting, but there would have been few critics in that room. She is clearly feral when it comes to climate change debates. I would love to see her get more media coverage… QANDA perhaps… she would drive rational people to the skeptics side in droves.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    The kickers is that they require total energy use in Australia to drop from just under 4PJ/Annum today to about 1.65PJ/Annum in 2020. via “energy efficiency measures”. That whole surrounded by tie-dye shirts thing is what has stopped me from joining the greens to be honest. Unions for ALP. I get in trouble for saying what stops me from the libs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Bulldust in #76, I’ve not cruched the numbers re: 0.0154C but if that number is taken, then Sharky is correct. It is not just a few words missed out – if you look at the table it clearly says that if Australia’s emissions were reduced by 100% by 2050 (ie no emissions) it would be a 0.0154C difference.

    The good news is I’ve got this report from BZE that tells me it can be done by 2020 no less!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael R

    @Sharky – What is confusing me is that what Jo said was not her own words but rather a direct quote from Dr Evans in the attached document:

    Notice that if Australia shut down entirely, and emitted no CO2 starting today, it
    would lower the temperature in 2050 by just 0.0154 °C (on IPCC figures).

    I can understand what you are trying to say and I will admit the document and it’s wording, particularly in relation it’s calculations is not particularly clear, so spent the last half hour going through the calculations to double check.

    The total reduction listed the bottom of the document is 0.12 degrees for a global value of CO2 of 507 ppm. 507 ppm is the amount determined for the total global temperature increase.

    The formula stated for working out our contribution is: T = 0.48ln(C /Co) , where C = Global CO2 levels and Co = Australia’s % of CO2 contributed. The 100% “Reduction” caluclation in the top table is based upon 1.38% of the total increase in CO2 from now until 2050 and this is the calue of Co used (in this case 1.62ppm) or in other words “If Australia’s % of emissions falls to 0″ then we have 0.01536 degrees saving.

    Remember that the formula is assuming that the total Global Emmissions is 507 and that the increase from now until then is 117ppm. If you contribution amount remains the same (that is 1.38% of the 117) then completely removing 1.38% of the emissions is effectively “Reducing Australias emissions to 0″. Which in other words can alse be stated as “if Australia reduced all emissions tomorrow to nothing”. The formula is working out the Global Temperature savings if Australia input no more CO2 into the system from now until 2050.

    The value for 100% reductions (or emissions to nothing) is correct, though it is not the easiest thing to work your head around. From there it is relatively simple to work out % base of redections of CO2.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    But MattB in the past haven’t you been one to say that this won’t destroy the economy?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark D – I don’t think it will destroy the economy, but I also don’t think it can be done at 33% the cost of supplying energy via conventional coal generation. I am not so naive as to think there are not morons on my side of the fence you know.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    less than 1/2 the energy in around eight years? I think that would have a profound effect on an economy.

    I suppose it could just mean lots of very cold nights instead. That has implications for population increase however.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    message to greg combet and SMH -

    u KNOW that no-one denies the climate changes, so cut out that crap now.

    union members need to take note of how opportunistic your former leaders are – and most of the current leaders for that matter.
    the unions should be leading the protests on 23rd march, but my guess is they won’t be there. shameful.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Michael R @80

    To me “Reducing Australias emissions to 0″ means we all stop burning carbon fuels completely, or at least find some major carbon offsets so we can claim we are 100% carbon neutral. Not increasing our current CO2 emission over the next 40 years (which assuming current global carbon sinks hold out, means Australia owns 0% of David’s 117ppm projected increase) is less than reducing annual emissions below a historical level (eg -5% of 2000′s emissions), and much less than zero net CO2 emissions.

    Note that David uses IPCC’s formula of T = 4.8ln(C /Co) in his tabulated calcs rather than his advocated T = 0.48ln(C /Co), but that is a whole other can of worms for someone else to argue.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fred

    2009: Just as the AGW juggernaut arrives in Copenhagen, blizzards blanket the northern hemisphere.

    2010: Cancun’s AGW love-in almost cancelled because most of the world’s airports are snowed-in.

    2011: Just as Tim Flannery and his “independent” acolytes are about to hand the “sustainable” baton to Adelaide University’s Barry Brook (nuclear is clean, glows green & renewable) and Ziggy Switkowski (if a bit of charisma is needed) , we have three Japanese nuclear reactors on the verge of meltdown.

    If I were a sceptic, I would say that the IPCC mob were in denial.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark D – yes the BZE plan may well have a significant impact on the economy, but I don’t back that plan.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Michael R @80 and Bulldust @76

    Although I have assumed that if Australia holds its current emission level (reduces CO2 by 0% of 2011 levels) that our current 390ppm won’t rise further due to us. This assumes that the global carbon cycle reaches equilibrium quickly each year, otherwise our current emissions may yet increase the 390ppm somewhat until our contribution reaches its equilibrium point.

    Still as far as I can see this is the same assumption that Dr Evans is making too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Michael R

    @Sharky

    To me “Reducing Australias emissions to 0″ means we all stop burning carbon fuels completely, or at least find some major carbon offsets so we can claim we are 100% carbon neutral. Not increasing our current CO2 emission over the next 40 years (which assuming current global carbon sinks hold out, means Australia owns 0% of David’s 117ppm projected increase) is less than reducing annual emissions below a historical level (eg -5% of 2000′s emissions), and much less than zero net CO2 emissions.

    You effectively just said what I was trying to say, so you are confusing me. The projected increase in emissions is based upon a “do nothing” approach that assumes that our emmissions will continue to be 1.38% of the global emmissions. This means that with our current rate of growth and increase in

    actual

    CO2 may occur but we are talking a % of the total which we are assuming remains constant.

    If the increase is supposed to be 117 by 2050 and we are responsible for the increase in 1.38% of that amount then by removing 1.38% of the total increase you get the complete removal of Australia’s contribution between now and 2050. This is everything – this is all Australian’s packing up and leaving the country. Historical contributions of CO2 don’t play a part in these claculations – it’s not like stopping emmitting CO2 will somehow also remove our past contributions, it’s working it out from this point forward.

    In the context of this forumla the statement

    Notice that if Australia shut down entirely, and emitted no CO2 starting today, it would lower the temperature in 2050 by just 0.0154 °C (on IPCC figures).

    is correct. Whether he has used the correct formula from the IPCC or whether the actual global temperature rise he starts with is correct, don’t ask me, but assuming the formula is correct the statement in this context is true.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    All right MattB, here is where I’d invoke the Precautionary Principle; I wouldn’t back ANY carbon tax plan (call it what you want).


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    bananabender

    Dr Karl is a degree collecting dilettante who has never stuck to any job long enough to learn anything useful. His radio and TV shows are laughably bad as he doesn’t seem to understand many basic scientific principles.

    Karl is also a notorious Warmist and Climate Change Coalition candidate


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    I won’t sidetrack the thread here, but I couldn’t help noticing this graph reproduced at the top of Professor Brook’s website which purports to show that the observed sea level rise is at the upper end of the IPCC projections from 1990.

    The IPCC first assessment report (1990):

    ….under business as usual emissions scenario, an average rate of global mean sea level rise of about 6 cm per decade over the next century (with an uncertainty range of 3 – 10 cm per decade)…

    The actual observed rate 1990 – 2010 is about 3 cm per decade, at the bottom (not the top) of the 1990 IPPC projections.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Micheal R @ 89

    Thanks I see the problem now, my assumption (@ 85) about fast carbon cycle equilibrium is not supported by Dr Evans. On re-reading his piece he clearly states that “We assume this proportion remains constant if no actions are taken to reduce Australian emissions.” which I believe means he is assuming that our 1.38% of current global CO2 annual increases (being 2ppm per year) will hold steady if we hold to current emissions. This of course assumes everyone else on the planet does the same, and that carbon cycle sinks do not absorb a proportionally higher amount of CO2 as the balance level increases (ie it never reaches equilibrium). As I understood it somewhere around 60% of anthropogenic CO2 gets re-absorbed at the 390ppm balance level, but I’ll need to check.

    I’ll try to do some more research on carbon cycle equilibrium and report back later.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    chris

    A question, all plant life seems to be helped by more CO2, what about animal life, we are all carbon based life forms do we grow better with more CO2> and yes I realise we exhale CO2 but just asking! also do the calculations account for the increased absorbtion of CO2 by the biomass on earth?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Fred

    Julia Gillard’s ETS proposal will undoubtedly finish her short role as Australia’s Prime Minister.
    She has just embarrassed our nation by telling the United States, & the world, that we are suckers who believe anything and do what they are told.
    Like her predecessor, she is isolated from reality by the focus groups and spin machine that has taken on a life and direction of its own.

    Until the AGW sceptics can match the advertising dollars of this desperate Government, we will continue to see Tony Jones employ every device to promote Tim Flannery and his “independent’s “ AGW cause on “their ABC”,
    The Murdoch media we will continue to print letters and articles in the usual imbalanced proportions of two for and the one against AGW action.
    If economist, Ross Garnaut’s prophecy of a flooded Sydney every year, and starting now, is taken seriously enough to occupy last week’s front pages, equal time should be given to a real scientist, like Jo Nova, to say why a glorified accountant should “stick to his knitting” and not talk about things he does not understand.

    Turnbull’s popularity in the polls is manufactured. Maybe because a Turnbull coalition would be Labour by proxy. With Turnbull, you wouldn’t even need the Greens to make sure that the new CO2 derivatives market or ETS lives up to the multi trillion dollar expectations of Wall St.

    Tony Abbott will do himself no favours by pandering to the confused and middle left by pretending to think CO2 emissions need reducing. He should stick to his guns and unite the people with the same clear and unambiguous message that gained him office. “AGW is crap!” He should promise to close the useless and dangerous qangos, such as the ETS who’s existence has more to do with the control of society, almost to a greater extent than federal government and its citizens, than to protect our safety.
    Tony Abbott should bury Turnbull who is a snake in the grass and threat to him and his party. Turnbull should be forced to cross the floor to where he really belongs.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    manalive 93 – you can’t compare actuals over 10 years with a predicted average per decade over 100 years (IPCC). The IPCC predictions are for greater rises in the latter half of the century, and lower rises now. Yeah yeah convenient I know.

    Also – the graph does not say it is based on IPCC 1990 predictions, it just uses 1990 as an origin. It gives no indication of what year the IPCC made those particular predictions (it is just a decorative banner).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Macha

    its pointless arguing over governments poor spending habits in relation to the public purse. The cash for clunkers, the schools re-education plan, closing the gap for indigenous Australians, etc.

    The latest I’ve heard is pensioners in rural WA getting a $500 fuel voucher – yet the recipient pensioner has no car, no licence and no taxi’s in this small town. Duh!?

    So more complex management processes, such as keeping track on an odorless, colurless, trace gas is WAAAYYY beyond governmental beauracratic ablities.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    bananabender@23

    A lot of top physicists hold that position and this skeptic of the CO2 caused doom scenario is willing to concede that the GHG theory may be a lot of old cobblers. However even if the GHG effect is accepted as a plausible hypothesis it has not been very difficult to show, as has already been done by highly credible climate scientists that the alarmist, or catastrophic position does not get much support from the GHG science itself nor from observational data.

    So it is probably more useful as well as more fun to demolish those wild scenarios by hoisting the perpetrators on their own petard, than be ridiculed, at this stage, for holding an hypothesis the propagandists may find easier to rebut, given the man in the street has some familiarity with the basic idea of GHG keeping the planet warm. Perhaps a choice of tactics.

    In the mean time, apart from maintaining the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics inviolate. It would be instructive to get more input on the development of that alternate hypothesis.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Actually I take back what I said in 76. Re-reading the original Evans pdf I realise I had misinterpretted what he said.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Here’s the breakdown:

    Current CO2 conc = 390ppm
    Projected CO2 conc = 507ppm

    Increase in CO2 = 507 – 390 = 117ppm

    The BAU (Business As Usual) case is assumed where Australia continues to contribute 1.38% of global CO2. Therefore the increase in CO2 concs attributable to Australia between now and 2050 is:

    Australian contribution = 117ppm * 1.38% = 1.6146ppm (was incorrectly rounded up to 1.62ppm – minor error but in favour of AGW types)

    Therefore if Australia stopped all CO2 emissions now it is assumed that 1.62ppm of CO2 increase by 2050 shall be avoided. Note that if Australia continued to emit at today’s rate there would still be a ppm contribution but it would be smaller. Therefore, if the entire 1.62ppm is to be avoided Australia must stop emitting CO2 altogether.

    Hence the 0.0154C drop in temperatures is from Australia abandoning all forms of CO2 emissions, or being CO2 emissions neutral through some other means.

    The wording was a bit miseleading, but re-read the pdf as I did and it should become clear.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    MattB (97)
    Hah! decorative banner indeed, a bit like this “decorative banner” I suppose.
    Look, the graph is clearly intended to give the impression that the current rate of sea level rise is exceeding the IPCC 1990 ‘projections” when the opposite is the case.
    You’re trying to defend the indefensible.

    So much for IPCC “projections”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I don’t see that at all sorry Manalive… is it not the case that all subsequent IPCC reports also use 1990 as a reference year?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Continued from 94 (re Micheal R @89)

    Knorr 2009 suggests I’m at 40% right (and David is 60% right?).

    That is carbon sinks (oceans, plants, etc) quickly adjust to consume 40% of our emissions (within our timescale) regardless of the atmospheric level.

    Really what David (and Jo) need to say is “if Australia reduces our emissions to 40% of 2011 levels (thus no longer increasing global ppm) then our contribution will only be a 0.0154°C reduction by 2050 (if we are the only country to act).”.

    Granted its not as striking a statement as before, but at least we now have a reduction target lower bound rather than just zero emissions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William Wallace

    joo LIER caught out telling LIES AGAIN!!!

    This lovechild of Mr Squiggles has no shame and no integrity!!

    Gillard’s latest global warming deceit.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_latest_global_warming_deceit/

    Every thing uttered by this Welsh Witch is a LIE!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Fred@96

    Good stuff on all points. Pity Turnbull decided to stay in politics, at least on the conservative side where he clearly does not belong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Mike W @ 65. Re Turnbull’s apparent popularity in the polls. Rusted-on Labor and Green supporters no doubt favour Goldman Sach’s Turnbull for his support of a Carbon Tax/ETS but they naturally also like to try and cause as much mischief for the Libs as they can. In an election, there’s no way they would vote for the Coalition no matter who was leader.

    The true position, as revealed in the Nielsen poll, was that people identifying themselves as coalition voters had Abbott 19 points clear of Turnbull as preferred leader.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    how farcical is it getting?

    15 March: Courier Mail: AAP: Climate change is real, says Tony Abbott
    FEDERAL Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has declared climate change is real after being attacked for telling a community forum that the science wasn’t settled.
    Mr Abbott said “whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out to be is not yet proven”…
    Yesterday, the Liberal leader stated that “climate change is real”.
    “Humanity is making a contribution,” Mr Abbott told Adelaide radio…
    While the political biffo continued unabated, Canberra academic Frank Jotzo gave a tick of approval to the federal government’s plan for pricing carbon.
    “Starting with a fixed price and later moving to cap-and-trade allows an orderly transition from allocating costs and risks to government … to allocating price and investment risks to major emitting businesses over time,” the Australian National University researcher wrote…
    He (Senior Liberal George Brandis) also defended Mr Abbott’s comments at the forum on the science.
    Senator Brandis put it this way: “What Mr Abbott said (on Monday) is completely consistent with the coalition’s position … that we accept that the consensus of the majority of scientific opinion is that climate change is a reality and human activity contributes to it”.
    That didn’t wash with Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson.
    He said Mr Abbott was “questioning the most fundamental aspect of the climate change science as to whether carbon dioxide is actually the cause of human-induced climate change”…
    Mr Combet’s office was spruiking the results of an Essential Poll that found support for pricing carbon jumped from 38 to 54 per cent when people were told low- and middle-income earners would be compensated for price rises.
    Australian Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne agrees that getting that message through is critical.
    “The community can be confident that everyone around the table are all keen to make sure that compensation flows through to the community,” she told Sky News.
    The table belongs to the multi-party climate change committee.
    It next meets this Friday when it’s tipped to discuss compensation arrangements…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/climate-change-is-real-says-tony-abbott/story-e6freonf-1226022026084

    divide and rule!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    It never ceases to amaze me how the alarmists so easily keep the debate focused on carbon dioxide.
    Carbon dioxide is only a bit player in catastrophic climate change, water vapour is the main villain.
    If you don’t have an endless positive feedback loop with water vapour you don’t have a catastrophe.

    It really is that simple!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    The war against the D word continues at the ABC here:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45004.html

    I responded to this comment yesterday:

    Clytie Siddall : 12 Mar 2011 3:48:02pm

    I love it when people claim their comments will not be published (I think I’ve seen you do that before, bulldust), and then the ABC routinely publishes them. :)

    But once again it was “moderated.” Let’s see how I go on Mark II wih the threat of the cross-post:

    Second attempt and cross copied … the previous response to this was moderated. Now I lay down the explicit threat to copy it elsewhere for evidence. See how this one fares…

    Perhaps you begin to understand the frustration of anyone not towing the CAGW line? Only when I lay the threat of cross-posting as evidence of ABC “moderation” do I get a post up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    14 March: Pielke Climate Science: February 2011 University Of Alabama Lower Tropospheric Temperature Summary
    Courtesy of Phil Gentry, the February 2011 University Of Alabama Lower Tropospheric Temperature Summary is presented below
    Global Temperature Report: February 2011

    Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade February temperatures (preliminary)

    Global composite temp.: -0.02 C (about 0.04 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for February.

    Northern Hemisphere: -0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for February.

    Southern Hemisphere: ±0.00 C (about 0.00 degrees Fahrenheit) above/below 30-year average for February.

    Tropics: -0.35 C (about 0.63 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for February.

    January temperatures (revised):

    Global Composite: -0.01 C below 30-year average

    Northern Hemisphere: -0.06 C below 30-year average

    Southern Hemisphere: +0.04 C above 30-year average

    Tropics: -0.35 C below 30-year average

    (All temperature anomalies are based on a 30-year average (1981-2010) for the month reported.)

    Notes on data released March 14, 2011: Color maps of local temperature anomalies may soon be available on-line at:

    http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

    ETC

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/february-2011-university-of-alabama-lower-tropospheric-temperature-summary/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> To elucidate… the last post on that sub-thread (mine) and the one that was moderated were posted within minutes of each other from the same PC/ISP. No reason why one should get up and not the other, except for blatant ABC “over-active moderation.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Binny @108

    “If you don’t have an endless positive feedback loop with water vapour you don’t have a catastrophe.”

    The positive feedback response only gets applied once.

    So for every 1°C of CO2 warming (or any other non water vapour warming you like) then water vapour will add another 1°C (or whatever value you prefer).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    anthony cox

    OT and sorry about the self-referencing, but Noone has analysed Garnaut’s wretched 2nd update which has been overshadowed by the Japan nuclear crisis:

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/03/garnauts-second-update-sceptics-are.html

    Unfortunately Unleashed did not have room for the follow up critique, although the first Garnaut one was published there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Thanks for these figures.

    What they clearly show by extrapolation is that 20% reduction by the world population would reduce the increase by 1 degree celsius.

    So thank you for justifying at least a 20% reduction in CO2 pollution.

    Great – now I know that something should be done to reduce CO2 and that it is possible.

    You have proven the opposite of what you intended!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Who could this William Wallace be?

    lulz do0d, dats som sweet pwnage. We’ll an ellete hax0r out of u yet! I, I mean you, are anonymous!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sharky @112,

    Question: How does water know the difference between a temperature rise from other than water and water itself?

    Answer: It doesn’t and can’t. It is a molecule without the ability to know. It just is and its reaction to environmental factors is totally determined by what it is. It cannot choose not to react.

    If there is a positive feedback based upon the response of water to a temperature rise which results in a further temperature rise then that temperature rise would then induce a further water response that would further increase temperature.

    Something must limit/prohibit this positive feedback because the oceans are not boiling and the sky is not on fire after the presumed positive feedback being operative for billions of years. This fact alone demonstrates there is no such thing as a catastrophic positive feedback mechanism in the earth’s atmosphere due to heating of GHG of any kind.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Cookster

    Pat@#84

    I imagine amongst the first to personally suffer (loss of employment) from any economic impact of the imposition of CO2 taxation will be unionised labour. However, while the union leadership is notable for their lack of support, the recent drift of ‘working class’ voters from Labor to the conservatives suggest they are out of step with their members so it might be interesting to watch where this leads.

    Pat@110

    Very hard to see any signature of positive feedbacks in those trends for 2011! But of course we need these trends to continue before life gets sucked out of the alarmists’ cause.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Anyone here with knowledge of preferential fractionation of CO2 from air pockets in ice?

    Pete Ridley has been investigating the possibility that the smaller kinetic diameter of CO2 (.33nm) compared with O2 (.36) and N2 (.38) results in CO2 migrating down the pressure gradient towards the surface of the ice long after O2 and N2 are too large to get through the pores. Apparently there is a great deal of knowledge of this process in the oil industry.

    He has checked with paleo-climatologists but they use collision diameter and stonewall when kinetic is brought up. He is also engaged in discussion with warmist geologist Mike Palin (Otago University) at Hot Topic but is just being preached to: “there is no significant fractionation of molecular proportions. End of story”.

    Pete is keeping us updated at Climate Conversation Group and has documented his work so far in comments starting here:-

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/03/its-not-warming-you-nitwit-its-cooling/#comment-44311

    Any tips to enable Pete to resolve his hypothesis would be appreciated. Interesting because the spin-up C02 data for the climate models is a splice of Law Dome ice core and Mauna Loa air samples with the air samples providing the recent uptick.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Is the Oz trying to distance itself from the alarmist position at long last?

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/earths-daily-woes-prompt-off-the-planet-theories/story-e6frg71x-1226022072987

    Comment I wrote, that was published yesterday, along the same lines

    How wonderful to see the media being pulled up on its unnecessary scaremongering. Unfortunately, the public have been exposed to this type of catastrophist journalism for so long now, many are completely brainwashed, desensitised or depressed. With real and present natural disasters unfolding (as they always have done), many people are consumed with what ‘might’ happen, seeing climate modelling as evidence. These people are even concerned that our naturally variable climate with temperatures that range up and down in cycles, had (past tense because it’s cooling again) changed by…wait for it…less than a degree. They are prepared to see our economy devastated, and real hardship endured unnecessarily, to satisfy their skewed worldview. To justify their irrational anxieties, we already have some of the most extreme alarmist fanatics prepared to link recent tectonic plate movement to miniscule increases in temperature. It is time we saw the environmental alarmists (including some journalists) for who they are – the sandwich-board wearing crazies of old preaching Armageddon.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William Wallace

    This is a followup story from Andrew Bolt regarding joo LIER’S recent LIES about the Chinese reducing their coal power stations, when in fact they are INCREASING them……

    If we follow China’s lead, we’ll build a score more coal-fired plants:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/if_we_follow_chilnas_lead_well_build_a_score_more_coal_fired_plants/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William Wallace

    “Waffle”, Isn’t that something that you eat with Ice Cream??


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] those with an interest to dig further into this garbage heap have a look here. (in order of appearance on Economics.org.au)Lang Hancock's Five Point Plan to Cripple AustraliaPut [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Sharky:@112

    ‘The positive feedback response only gets applied once.’

    Now that’s something I’ve never heard before.
    No tipping point, no out-of-control warming, the planets temperature can be precisely micromanaged.
    When do you think the war between the higher latitude nations (who would like a few degrees warmer) and the lower latitude nations (who would like a few degrees cooler) is going to start?

    Lionell Griffith:@116 Pointed out the lack of logic in your statement, but Hey – this is ‘climate change’…. logic is an optional extra.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Delory

    Have I missed something?

    The claim of ‘More frequent and more intense cyclones/hurricanes/etc’ represent a fundamental violation of conservation of energy..

    Imagine that we covered the entire earth with wind-turbines, harvesting every breath of wind with 100% efficiency. Let the total energy output be W0.
    Now lets significantly increase the CO2 concentration (x10, x100, whatever it takes etc..)… Bingo! We have ‘more frequent and more intense cyclones/hurricanes/etc’, and the energy output of our 100% efficient wind turbine farm has increased, without increasing the amount of energy input to the system (solar radiation). We have magically created energy out of nowhere – akin to a perpetual-motion machine…

    Thus – the claim is falsified.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mike W

    Keith H @ 106, that seems to be a better fit, cheers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Lionell Griffith @116 and Binny @122

    Because the amount of Water Vapour (WV) warming increase per other warming increase is the steady state amount (ie it includes the iterative self additions until it plateaus). So for example if I say 1°C of CO2 warming causes another 1°C of WV warming what I am really saying is:

    1°C extra WV warming = 0.5^1 + 0.5^2 + 0.5^3 + 0.5^4 + … and so on

    As you can see in the example each iteration of WV adds 50% of each previous increase (including itself).

    So the reason we refer to a non-WV increase only causing a WV increase is so that we are not counting it twice (or more).

    How do we know that WV does not by itself cause runaway warming? Because we can safely light a match :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Well it looks like we might be right on track with the prediction of a second major global recession starting in Q1, 2011 (John Mauldin). It is shocking to see the brutal carnage resulting from Gaia’s shrug off the coast of Japan, but it is inevitable that the Japanese are going to see similar havoc wreaked on their stock exchange and economy. All the economies that were critically poised near the edge of brankruptcy (default) will now have a sturdy nudge closer to, or over the edge of the debt abyss.

    On a more cheery note it would appear Rudd is positioning for a come back… he said he was more likely to captain the Broncos than become PM again:

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-takes-pot-shot-at-gillard-as-he-firms-in-polls-20110315-1bvzh.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Thanks Cohenite. Zbigniew Jaworowski is one of the many that Pete has been in contact with but I’ll post the link. Pete (a retired chartered engineer) has been trying to get the attention of experts in the field of gas purification but they appear to be too busy doing their day jobs to even get interested in what to them must be a side-issue.

    Two prospects are the nano-technology group at the University of Canterbury and Paul Dennis at UEA whose research interests lie in the application of natural stable isotope chemistry to environmental and palaeoclimate studies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Being an amateur could someone explain to me how CO2, a gas that comprises about one tenth of a percent of the atmosphere raise atmospheric temperatures as claimed by warming proponents.

    Taking into account factors such as wind, convection and radiation, how hot or whatever would the CO2 gas need to get to heat the Earth up by one degree?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    BTW I came across this at WUWT, and it is an excellent, clear and concise explanation of “hide the decline”:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

    Prof Muller also states that ClimateGate was a leak and not a hack as we suspected all along, and that the leak was probably from a disgruntled team member (Briffa perhaps?).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Delory – yep you’ve missed quite a bit – like anything from year 7 science onwards.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Kevin Moore:
    The science associated with CO2 as a GHG is well established. My lay understanding is that the relationship is logarhytmic, which is to say that the warming effect increases linearly for exponential increases in CO2 concentrations. A simpler way to state it: a doubling of CO2 would be expected to have a direct heating effect of approximately 1 degree Celcius.

    The first 100ppm or so of CO2 in the atmosphere does all the heavy lifting… once you get to 390ppm as we are now, the incremental impact of another 100ppm increase is very small.

    The following graph explains it better than words:
    http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/log-co2/log-graph-lindzen-choi-web.gif

    Withot any CO2 in the atmosphere we would all freeze, but as you can see from the graph above, after the first couple hundred ppm, another couple thousand ppm doesn’t make a lot of difference.

    The whole catastrophic warming argument revolves around the CO2 warming being magnified by massive positive feedback loops in the climatic system. This is why you will find very few geologists that support the AGW theory because they know the sorts of cycles the earth has been through in the past. A massive positive feedback mechnism as assumed in the IPCC models cannot possibly be true because we would not be here today debating the issue. The earth would have boiled away the oceans a millions of years ago … but somehow it didn’t.

    So what is more likely? That the earth miraculously tippy toed between critical tipping points and stayed climatically stable for amillions of years, or perhaps the climate scientists doing the models may be a tad off in their assumptions about the climate system feedbacks?

    Personally I side with a couple billion years of known geological history … but I am weird that way :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> Another thing to note is that there are still a lot of unknowns in climate science (some are known unknowns, but there are probably unknown unknowns, to borrow from Rumsfeld).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Cohenite, Pete’s contention seems to one of a number of issues with the ice core data. The information in that link (#124) sure puts the cat among the pigeons.

    The statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 19, 2004 is news to me and should be brought back to public attention.

    Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

    The data from shallow ice cores, such as those from Siple, Antarctica[5, 6], are widely used as a proof of man-made increase of CO2 content in the global atmosphere, notably by IPCC[7]. These data show a clear inverse correlation between the decreasing CO2 concentrations, and the load-pressure increasing with depth (Figure 1 A). The problem with Siple data (and with other shallow cores) is that the CO2 concentration found in pre-industrial ice from a depth of 68 meters (i.e. above the depth of clathrate formation) was “too high”. This ice was deposited in 1890 AD, and the CO2 concentration was 328 ppmv, not about 290 ppmv, as needed by man-made warming hypothesis. The CO2 atmospheric concentration of about 328 ppmv was measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii as later as in 1973[8], i.e. 83 years after the ice was deposited at Siple.

    An ad hoc assumption, not supported by any factual evidence[3, 9], solved the problem: the average age of air was arbitrary decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped. The “corrected” ice data were then smoothly aligned with the Mauna Loa record (Figure 1 B), and reproduced in countless publications as a famous “Siple curve”. Only thirteen years later, in 1993, glaciologists attempted to prove experimentally the “age assumption”[10], but they failed[9].

    I’ve wondered about that splice and now it turns out to have been invalidated in 1993 and studiously ignored in 2004.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    MattB,

    Once again you snipe from the gallery with an ad hom attack. Why not just simply explain to Delory where there mistake is?? (i.e. The IPCC states that increased CO2 causes increased retention of energy, not increased energy). But instead you belittle Delory. I have NEVER seen you add anything of value to this site….. Wait, I have….. you give us someone to laugh at!!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sharky @126,

    Because the amount of Water Vapour (WV) warming increase per other warming increase is the steady state amount (ie it includes the iterative self additions until it plateaus).

    I ask again, how does the water vapor know the difference between the warming due to itself and other factors?

    Here are some questions you need to answer clearly and correctly. Then you must hold them as your context as you answer my question above:

    What heat is?
    What is temperature?
    What is a gas or vapor?
    What happens when a gas or vapor is heated?
    What is a liquid?
    What is phase change?
    What happens when a liquid changes to a gas?
    What happens when a gas changes to a liquid?
    What happens when a liquid changes to a solid?
    What is feedback?
    What is positive feedback?

    Then after clearly and correctly answering these questions and if you still hold to your hypothesis of a steady state positive feedback system, how do you propose to measure the amount of water vapor warming per unit warming from other causes?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    OSI – just read Delory’s post. It was not asking a question, it was not a simple error, it was a brash “here’s my considered opinion” in 7 or so sentences of tripe. Finishing with “Thus – the claim is falsified” and my reply was what it deserved:) I see it has two thumbs up from other morons.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William Wallace

    Many words can represent
    This lying, useless government
    It’s certainly not a sine qua non
    To access the nearest lexicon

    Because words come freely to describe
    This squanderous maladroit tribe
    That fails every test it confronts
    With unconsidered heedless stunts

    3 ½ years of dereliction
    They’re a living breathing contradiction
    One moment inactive, the next most reckless
    Irresponsible and feckless

    Prone to gross prevarication
    And with the Greens a bifurcation
    Incompetence is top of mind
    The populace are disinclined

    How much impairment can they impose?
    Such a rich source of polyphonic prose
    Attaint, disgrace, dishonour, shame
    Inapt, infelicitous, unskilled, disclaim

    A leader defines the ‘Peter Principle’
    So many more words inadmissible
    A treasurer venal and fallacious
    So many statements clearly mendacious

    Picaresque and duplicitous
    Fraudulent and unscrupulous
    Venal, roguish, janus-faced
    Any trust sorely misplaced

    That entire last verse is dedicated
    To the ALP I’ve never rated
    So many reasons to distrust
    A mob that leaves us all nonplussed

    It seems I’ve been far too verbose
    In my construction of this prose
    But there’s just one word I do espouse
    To describe this rabble: SHITHOUSE!

    http://arthurmcarthurs.blogspot.com/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    MattB,

    The reply Delori deserved was a simple exlanation, not a snipe from a troll with the brains God gave a turnip. At least TRY to be civil in here!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ok I’ll Try again.

    Dear Delory in 123. I’m afraid that your simplistic understanding of science has led you to a flawed conclusion. The entire planet’s energy is pretty much provided by the sun. CO2 lets the planet keep hold of more of that energy than it would otherwise do. Rather than creat energy from nothing, it is simply a case of keeping hold of a greater proportion of the energy provided by the sun.

    p.s. eat all your lunch today and be nice to your teachers. I’ll pick you up after Auskick.

    Love Mum.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    p.s. if that Lionell kid starts bullying you about contravention of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tell the teacher.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Lionell Griffith @136

    “how does the water vapor know the difference between the warming due to itself and other factors?”

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough @126. The answer to your question is water vapour doesn’t know the difference, but each time it adds 50% more warming from itself (see my prior example) those iterative amounts become increasingly smaller.

    If you then add up all the iterations of 50% increases due to water vapour you get a 1°C “steady state” value (as per my example, which may or may not be the real feedback value, but I’ve used it for the purpose of showing the concept).

    Give it a go in Excel, or look up “geometric progression number series” if you doubt the math.

    So when you use a steady state value, you can’t then go and use it again on itself because this has already been accounted for, and you would be counting it twice if you did. Which is why people (not the water vapour itself) make the distinction of the different source of warming, so as not to be in error when using a steady state value for a feedback.

    As to your long list of high school physics questions, I’m sure you know the answers already and are just trying to yank my chain. Either that or you were trying to make my response to your question unduly exhaustive for me and anyone reading it.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    I thought that carbon was a poor conductor of heat? How does it cause air to heat up?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    chris

    It does not, it is a giant scam, the only honest science I have seen it experiments that show the slight increace due to humans makes plant life grow quicker with less water, I can show that carbon credits cause more CO2 to be emitted for a given product.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sharky @143,

    How do you know it adds 50% warming from itself? Maybe it’s 10%, 110%, or even -0.01%. Aren’t you just guessing?

    If it does add warming, how can that warming not further increase water vapor and add still more warming recursively without limit?

    I agree that if you put your numbers and your geometric series into an Excel spread sheet, they would work the way you say. What does that have to do with the reality of the earth’s sun/moon,atmosphere/water/land/plants/animals/and microbe and other stuff highly coupled complex non-linear system?

    I offered as proof that the oceans are not boiling and the sky is not burning after billions of years of the so called catastrophic positive feedback loop in operation. Based upon the nature of positive feedback and the nature of every physical example of positive feedback, one can clearly conclude that it simply does not exist in the form you assert.

    How about offering some actual physical evidence, an experiment that can be performed, and a set of measurements that one could take to demonstrate what you say is even in the ball park of reality?

    That is, try doing some actual objective science for a change and stop projecting your fantasies upon reality. Neither myself, most on this list, nor reality gives a damn about them. They are without content or meaning if not reduced to observable facts, reproducible experiments, and objective measurements.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I had a little dig at one of the “resident” AGW guys on Andrew Bolts blog today concerning his anti nuclear stance. He replied with a link to the BZE document. I had a quick look throught the exec. summary and I note they think Australia can get 40% of its electrical energy needs from wind. Are these guys for real. Given most wind turbines only produce about 25% ( max) of their expected output where are they going to put all the turbines ?
    I live in Wellington , NZ and even with our “windy Wellington” reputation I doubt we could get anywhere near 40% of our region’s needs, even if we wanted to.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Ross; BZE are liars full stop;

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/08/12/zca2020-critique/

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/

    They do not have the guts to respond to Brook’s challenge yet they get good coverage from the imbecilic msm.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Richard C@135;

    as well as Jaworoski there is this neat little analysis of the flaws in measuring past CO2 levels based on ice core data:

    http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_1.pdf


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Delory

    Hello Matt B,

    Thanks for your reply. I truly do appreciate critical feedback.

    My post was a proposed argument debunking the alarmist ‘more often AND more intense storm’ claim. My apologies if it appears to be “a brash ‘here’s my considered opinion’ in 7 or so sentences of tripe”. I have presented it in the form of a ‘mental experiment/logical argument’ and tried to keep it simple and brief.

    If the earth receives fixed amount of solar radiation (ie. the sun remains constant, as does our distance from the sun), then the total amount of energy pumped into the climate system is fixed. An increase in CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) may result in additional energy STORAGE, but not the rate at which energy is pumped into the climate system. A changing climate could therefore have EITHER;
    1) An increase in the frequency, but decrease in intensity of storms or
    2) An increase in the intensity, but decrease in frequency of storms.

    It is not possible to have an increase in BOTH intensity AND frequency of storms, as this would be a violation of energy conservation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Delory

    If anybody can see flaws/weaknesses in this line of reasoning, I would appreciate your comments. (Hence my opening line of ‘Have I missed something?’) Again, my apologies for my poor authorship.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    MattB @ 141 & 142. You cheeky bugger, I lol’d in spite of myself. I hope we get to see more of that humour from you.

    So I was doing a little thought experment last night. Imagine a ball of gas (air) suspended in a vacuum with no solid surface, no blackbody absorber/radiator at it’s centre; earth without the earth so to speak. I’ve read and been told that incoming solar radiation isn’t absorbed to any significant degree by our atmosphere. I’ve seen the stellar and terrestrial blackbody radiation curves so I understand that sun radiates a relatively small amount of energy in the absorbtion bands of the various atmospheric GHG’s. So my main question is, can my imaginary ball of air be directly “warmed” by solar radiation without a blackbody absorber/radiator at its core? And along those lines, what is the absolute strength of direct solar IR measured at the top of the atmosphere, I know it’s small but is is it so small as to be meaningless? Is it featured as part of those energy budgets with all the arrows going every which way?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Delory

    “If the earth receives fixed amount of solar radiation (ie. the sun remains constant, as does our distance from the sun), then the total amount of energy pumped into the climate system is fixed. An increase in CO2 (or any greenhouse gas) may result in additional energy STORAGE, but not the rate at which energy is pumped into the climate system. A changing climate could therefore have EITHER;
    1) An increase in the frequency, but decrease in intensity of storms or
    2) An increase in the intensity, but decrease in frequency of storms.

    It is not possible to have an increase in BOTH intensity AND frequency of storms, as this would be a violation of energy conservation.”

    I’ve bolded the point where your argument breaks down. The increased storage means there is more energy in the system. This therefore could result in both increased frequency and intensity, or increased frequency and decreased intensity, or decreased frequency and increased intensity, or in fact decreased intensity and decreased frequency, depending on how you define a “storm”. For the latter energy would logically be doing something other than producing storms.

    The fact, however, that there is more energy in the system, means there is no violation of energy conservation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Goodonya Mike W. Excuse me if I had a little chuckle at my own efforts too:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Delory:
    You seem to be missing their point that while the incoming energy may be largely unchanged, the net amount remaining in the atmosphere is increased due to GHGs. As long as there is increased energy being retained in the system why should it not be possible to have more intense and frequent storms?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Kinda scary when MattB and I actually agree on something… I am sure we both feel dirty now :p


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    We agree, yet I still get a thumbs down:)

    Not only do we agree, but Mark D has a good comment on an ABC Drum/Unleashed blog where my almost identical comment from a couple of hours earlier appears to have been moderated:) Do some of these Drum bloggers just imagine an entirely different universe to the one we are actually living in?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    I’m trying to answer my own question and what I’ve found so far is suprising, for me at least! From the Wiki on Infrared, “Infrared light from the Sun only accounts for 49%[11] of the heating of the Earth, with the rest being caused by visible light that is absorbed then re-radiated at longer wavelengths.”

    Is that right?! I had seriously bought the idea that the atmosphere was only heated from the bottom up by terrestrial infra-red?!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    I had seriously bought the idea that the atmosphere was only heated from the bottom up by terrestrial infra-red?!

    Oops, got a bit carried away there; surface interaction, conduction, convection, latent heat and adiabatic lapse not withstanding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Lionell Griffith @146

    The 50% warming was just my example, the truth is I don’t know the real number, or even if it is yet nailed down by scientists. From here the argument becomes climate feedback sensitivity in response to the CO2 warming component, of which most agree water vapour would be a major part of it. As you’ve probably heard, here and elsewhere, there is much discussion over the role of clouds and water vapour in the climate. I’m an engineer not climate scientist, so I’ll readily admit my limitations on the finer points of climate science.

    However we do know water vapour feedback is less than 100% otherwise lighting a match would cause runaway greenhouse warming. We do know it is more positive than -100% since other natural sources of warming aren’t immediately snuffed to zero.

    Most AGW types like myself will say climate feedback sensitivity is positive and likely to be a total of 2°C for every 1°C of CO2 warming (thus making a combined 3°C per doubling of CO2 concentration). Others in the skeptic camp say this is much lower but still positive, say 0.5°C for every 1°C of CO2 warming and thus we have plenty of time to get CO2 under control. Others like Dr Evans here believe the climate feedback sensitivity is negative and mostly cancels out the direct CO2 warming (for a combined 0.3°C per doubling of CO2 concentration).

    Your point about non-linear systems is quite correct, and my example is purely a linear one. The non-linearity of the climate system is what turns some AGW types into CAGW “alarmists”. If the climate modeling breaks down after a 3°C jump in global temperatures, say because permafrost methane kicks in bigtime, or the oceans stop absorbing CO2 and start gassing it out (or some other unknown), then we get “run away” warming until the earth finds its new equilibrium point. Note that while there are many climate feedbacks, they do not all operate on the same timescale.

    “try doing some actual objective science for a change and stop projecting your fantasies upon reality…”. Lionell, mate, if you can’t understand the theory then what are you going to make of the results? The truth is there are plenty of scientists out there trying to crack the climate question, but I’m not one of them.

    This thread started with me reassuring Binny that he need not worry about runaway water vapour warming, but if you choose to still fret over it after my epic attempt to explain otherwise then I won’t be losing any sleep :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Delory

    Thanks for your comments MattB and Bulldust.

    My understanding of climate physics might be faulty. This is my understanding of how it all works… Corrections are welcome…

    Solar radiation hits the atmosphere.
    Various energies within the spectrum are absorbed at particular frequencies by atmospheric gases.
    Some radiation is reflected/re-radiated back into space.
    The rest hits the ground/oceans and causes warming.
    Energy stored by oceans, land, water vapour, CO2 etc… increases.
    Until at some point, this energy is ‘released’ as kinetic/electrical/acoustic energy (be it ordinary ‘wind’, a storm, lightning, cyclone etc..)
    The kinetic energy of air molecules in a wind/storm/cyclone bash around until the energy is ‘dissipated’ – ie. Inelastic collisions causing deformation of structures etc.. converting the kinetic energy back to molecular ‘heating’. The spectrum of the dissipated ‘heat’ is broadband – so most of it will radiate back into space (a small portion of the spectrum will be reabsorbed by atmospheric molecules on the way out – but this is insignificant compared to the incoming solar radiation and can be ignored). Energy is conserved, and the energy balance is maintained.

    The RATE at which the CO2 and other GHG molecules can ‘recharge’ ready for the next storm is determined by the intensity of the incoming solar radiation – NOT by the amount of molecules present. Hence we could have frequent ‘small’ energy dissipation events, or infrequent ‘large’ energy dissipation events. The only way we could have more frequent AND more intense energy dissipation events would be to increase the intensity of incoming solar radiation (ie. Make the sun hotter or closer).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    William Wallace

    Here is a great analysis of this Water Vapour Trick used in the climate models.

    Well worth reading!

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sharky @160,

    I see, you are both unable and unwilling to deal with anything real. All you offer is “I guessed” and “they say” or “they believe”. What does that have to do with anything real with respect to the earth, its weather, and its (whatever)? Not a diddling damn thing. Why do you even bother to comment when you actually have nothing to add to the conversation that has any substance whatsoever?

    Jabberwocky is all you have to offer.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “The RATE at which the CO2 and other GHG molecules can ‘recharge’ ready for the next storm is determined by the intensity of the incoming solar radiation – NOT by the amount of molecules present.”

    Nope. If you had 20 buckets of water (atmosphere) and it rained a lot (energy from sun) – you’d have 20 buckets full of water.

    If you added a bucket (increased CO2), then next identical rain event you’d have 21 buckets of water (ie more energy).

    To reverse your argument, you are suggesting that if the atmosphere dissappeared then the temperature would be the same, given temp is determined by intensity of radiation NOT the amount of molecules present.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Barry Brickmore, unlike most ABC CAGW fans, is actually wading into the debate on his own blog post here:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45086.html

    In response to one skeptic he wrote:

    Barry Bickmore :
    15 Mar 2011 4:09:05pm
    Oh, no! Sceptical Sam doesn’t think I’m a True Scientist!

    When I appeal to “consensus,” I’m not talking about how scientists “do science.” I’m talking about how policymakers who aren’t in a position to judge between competing expert opinions should try to make somewhat informed decisions.

    so I responded (assuming it gets posted):

    Interesting argument… so you are saying that policy-makers should make decisions not based upon the scientific approach but rather pick the most popular hypothesis of the day?

    If government’s pump tens of billions of dollars of research funding into one side of a debate, which to you think will be the most popular? Clearly you can see how this is a circular approach.

    It is understandable that a scientist who supports the popular hypothesis would promote such an argument. The chaps of Freakonomics would be able to write a good chapter on this I am sure.

    *Needless to say this one is being copied elsewhere as insurance*

    The chap is a scientist but arguing that consensus should be the approach adopted by policymakers. Laughable.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Re Lionell Griffith 163

    Oh dear, making Lionell try to join the dots seams to have made his head explode…

    Anyone know where he lives so we can call an ambulance?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    manalive

    About 50% of Australia’s CO2 emissions come from electricity generation and all electricity consumers receive a bill.
    Why not make the ‘carbon tax’ voluntary by giving consumers the option of paying the impost with their bill much like the current ‘Green Power’ option but of course it would necessarily be somewhat greater.
    I understand Japan has a number of voluntary ETS schemes.

    Commercial consumers could use their accredited status as ‘Earth-Savers’ in their advertising, while the individual consumers could be issued with an official certificate that they could prominently display framed in their living rooms (or even their front window) and a decoration (medal or some such) which they could wear with pride.

    If the vast majority of Australians want “something done” about ‘climate change’ (as the Greens/ALP claim) I’m sure this idea will catch on — a true libertarian solution.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

    Based mainly on the Trenberth et al.

    “Clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and ozone directly absorb 23 percent of incoming solar energy.” No mention of solar IR interacting with GHG’s on the way in.

    And also,

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/earth_atmosph_radiation_budget.html

    “A relatively narrow “window” of EM wavelengths around visible light reaches the ground. It includes some of the longer wavelength UV frequencies, some of the shorter wavelength IR frequencies, and all of the visble light region of the spectrum.

    Most of the longer wavelength IR waves, and many of the shorter radio waves, are absorbed by the stratosphere before reaching the ground.

    So what’s absorbing the incoming long wave IR in the stratosphere? I’m back to thinking there’s not that much energy available in that spectrum and it probably doesn’t have any important effect on the troposphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Delory

    Hi MattB

    Thanks again for your comments. I like your analogy with the water buckets, however I would question one aspect of it.

    By adding a 21st bucket, you are increasing the ‘area of bucket mouth’ that intersects the incoming rain. This would be similar to increasing the size of the earth to capture more incoming solar radiation. I think that adding 5% to the depth of each bucket (and keeping only 20 buckets) is a closer analogy to the climate model. Thus it takes longer to fill the buckets (if we are going to store more water).

    Regarding your second comment – I am not concerned with temperatures. I am concerned with energy conservation. Energy must be conserved. Temperature does whatever is necessary to ensure energy is conserved.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I think you’d increase the depth of the buckets if someohow something happened that meant each molecule became able to absorb more. I think adding a bucket best represents the situation we are discussing for sure. It is basic analogy but we are at a basic level here.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    overseasinsider

    See Matt, Everything is much happier when we all play nice!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Enjoying reading the to n fros of comments. I wasn’t going to wade in but I can’t let pass an opportunity to be educated by such intellectual giants as MattB.
    So a question for my edification MattB…You say…

    MattB:
    March 16th, 2011 at 12:28 pm edit

    Ok I’ll Try again.

    Dear Delory in 123. I’m afraid that your simplistic understanding of science has led you to a flawed conclusion. The entire planet’s energy is pretty much provided by the sun. CO2 lets the planet keep hold of more of that energy than it would otherwise do. Rather than creat energy from nothing, it is simply a case of keeping hold of a greater proportion of the energy provided by the sun.

    p.s. eat all your lunch today and be nice to your teachers. I’ll pick you up after Auskick.

    Love Mum.

    Keep hold of energy eh? delay its exit to the nether regions in other words.

    Would you please tell me how long GHGs keep this energy in?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m trying to keep it simple Humbug. I will not be held to account for the scientific accuracy of the term “keep hold of energy” :)

    How about you ask Bulldust “increased energy being retained in the system”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I will add that the existing GHGs in the atmosphere retain that additional energy pretty much indefinately, but I can;t vouch for individual packets of energy. It is a bit like the old CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere argument we’ve all had…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Although I am looking forward to finding out what this trap is you are getting me to fall in to:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I believe it was one bucketful being retained yes?

    Yes I am aware you can’t “trap” energy … laws of thermodynamics and all that. But it is useful to use “approximate” language unless you are talking to scientists from the field.

    I mean if I talk about Lagrangian Transforms or heteroscedasticity most people won’t have a clue what I am jabbering on about (myself included sometimes).

    I have never pretended to be a climate scientist, but I have some basic questions that the CAGW has never adequately answered, which is why I remain skeptical of the “C” part … I have no real issues with the “AGW” part, but I realise some folks question that too.

    I had an interesting chat with a chap far brighter than myself* after the BZE presentation on Monday. He is toying with pursuing a PhD examining the way the climate system buffers (my word, not his) itself against increases in CO2. Interesting stuff, but I won’t say more than that without permission. A fair bit of what he talked about went just over my head (and I am not dim by any means).

    * I am no slouch … beer abuse notwithstanding.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    From this I have learned that the earth would cool down to below zero F in under a week were the sun to go out. Interestingly if the sun simply stopped “burning” it would be about 10,000 years before we noticed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m going to have to add to #174, in that “I will add that the existing GHGs in the atmosphere retain that additional energy pretty much indefinately” … as long as the sun is still shining.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Delory

    Hi MattB,

    Thanks for the clarification. I think I may have been interpreting the analogy slightly differently than you. I was thinking of that each ‘bucket’ represented 1/20th of the total quantity of any given GHG, whereas you saw each bucket representing a ‘molecule’ of GHG. (Hence, I added 5% to the depth of each ‘bucket’, which would not make sense with a molecular model).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    re: Bulldust:
    March 16th, 2011 at 10:42 am Comment 133

    The science associated with CO2 as a GHG is well established. My lay understanding is that the relationship is logarhytmic, which is to say that the warming effect increases linearly for exponential increases in CO2 concentrations. A simpler way to state it: a doubling of CO2 would be expected to have a direct heating effect of approximately 1 degree Celcius.

    The science isn’t established at all. A first-principles mathematical derivation of the Greenhouse Effect has never been published in any legitimate journal.

    Measuring the spectophotometric absorption of a gas in a closed vessel has absolutely no relevance to the real world. In a sealed laboratory tube there is no appreciable convection, free expansion of gases or effective radiation which all counteract heating. In the atmosphere unconfined gases simply expand and rise when heated.

    The Earth isn’t a sealed vessel. The atmosphere simply expands when heated by the Sun counteracting any “Greenhouse Effect” in a well documented phenomenon called the diurnal bulge.

    Title: The Shape and Location of the Diurnal Bulge in the Upper Atmosphere
    Authors: Jacchia, L. G. & Slowey, J.
    Journal: SAO Special Report #207 (1966)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    bananabender @ 180

    Ok, that’s interesting, I’ve been asking (myself) questions about the possibility/extent of direct solar heating of the atmopshere.

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/earth_atmosph_radiation_budget.html

    This shows most of the “direct” solar IR being absorbed in the stratosphere. The absorbed energy should be re-radiated omni-directionally (radiative transfers dominate “up there” correct?. This should lead to some top-down heating of the lower atmosphere. I can’t see why tropospheric heating shouldn’t involve some degree of top-down and bottom-up conductive/radiative heating.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    No trap Matt. Would I do that to you?

    Was a legit question. No one seems to know the answer.

    I’m constantly reminded that we’ve known of GHG energy retaining properties for 150 years. Surely by now we know how long GHGs retain this energy in the atmosphere?

    There would be a profound difference in effect if this retention time was…say, minutes instead of hours or days or years even no?

    So, to clarify. A photon (or wave if you prefer) of energy arrives at the surface in short wave form. It is released towards the atmosphere in long wave form. How long does it spend in the atmosphere before shooting out to space?
    Approximate answer will do, i.e. seconds or minutes or hours or or or?

    thnx in advance. I love learning from you.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Bulldust:
    March 16th, 2011 at 10:42 am

    We’d all freeze if there wasn’t any CO2? We’d all be dead is the truth. The temperature might be a very little lower but there would still be water vapour. I’m not sure what the difference would be but I’m sure there would be albedo effects and that the lack of evapo-transpiration would have an effect. Planet might actually be warmer. Water and biology made this planet’s surface, soil and atmosphere as well as regulating the chemistry of the oceans. Unless biology is included in the models they ain’t got nothin’. Lots of luck with that. Only way to find out is to run the giant analog computer known as Planet Earth. It includes ALL the variables, feedback loops and other as yet unsuspected linkages.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Baa @ 182

    Can I hijack this? Or give it my best educated guess at least.

    The photon’s energy will likely be thermalised (converted to linear molecular kinetic energy) after the first absorbtion as a consequence of equipartition. From that point, it’s impossible to track the ultimate destination of that packet of energy/momentum but the system has to conserve both. An equivalent amount of kinetic energy will eventually be lost (somewhere near the top of the atmosphere, again, as a consequence of equipartition) from the system after excitation and radiation. Obviously it’s only appropriate to talk about the aggregate effects; how quickly a large change in upwelling longwave IR at the surface is felt at the top of the atmosphere. I have NFI, has it been measured? How long is it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Baa Humbug:
    March 16th, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    So, to clarify. A photon (or wave if you prefer) of energy arrives at the surface in short wave form. It is released towards the atmosphere in long wave form. How long does it spend in the atmosphere before shooting out to space?
    Approximate answer will do, i.e. seconds or minutes or hours or or or?

    Electromagnetic radiation travels at 300,000 km/sec. So it should take about 0.3 milliseconds to travel the 100km to space.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Carbon Tax Australia? Welcome to Futility Island! True…

    … but look at how commonsense is prevailing in the US:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/149713-house-panel-approve-bill-to-block-epa-climate-rules

    I have no doubt that after the US abandons the IPCC’s mantra, and prevents the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide in the US, and legislates that carbon tax is not a pollutant, which all look likely now, then this will spell the beginning of the end of the global warming nightmare. For sure, it will isolate the EU, the EU’s ETS will then collapse, and sanity will prevail again as people get back to cheap fossil fuel energy, and the world moves on!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    I should have said, “how quickly a large change in upwelling longwave IR at the surface translates to a commensurate change in outgoing radiation (exiting the system to space) at the top of the atmosphere”.

    Say specifically at 13um.

    Doesn’t sound that hard to measure actually, must have been done, surely?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tim

    I believe the proceeds of our proposed (imposed)Carbon Tax will go directly to the UN. Not Australia.

    No MSM front page headline or street demonstrations I’ve noticed recently on this one.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Electromagnetic radiation travels at 300,000 km/sec. So it should take about 0.3 milliseconds to travel the 100km to space.

    Say the IR in question is at 13um. Co2 molecules will absorb all the available photons within the first few tens of metres of atmosphere. The photons are gone (absorbed and thermalised), but their original energy and momentum continues to push through the atmosphere undergoing god knows how many transfers and collisions. It should take considerably longer than 0.3 msecs for that energy/momentum to move through the atmosphere.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Percival Snodgrass @ 121

    “Waffle”, Isn’t that something that you eat with Ice Cream??

    Not in Sydney but, it might be the thing to do in Norwich.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    For those who want to have an idea of the estimated cost of the green policies intended to be implemented in the US, here is the cost figure… $700 trillion to drop Earth’s temperature by 1 degree celsius.

    Even the EPA has admitted the cost of regulating greenhouse gases is ‘absurd’.

    Read about it here:

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=275109


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Mike W:
    March 16th, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    It should take considerably longer than 0.3 msecs for that energy/momentum to move through the atmosphere.

    I was being facetious.

    The overwhelming energy transfers in the atmosphere/ocean system are through phase changes in water and conduction and convection from the surface not some supposed Greenhouse Effect.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mike Borgelt @ 183:

    We’d all freeze if there wasn’t any CO2? We’d all be dead is the truth. The temperature might be a very little lower but there would still be water vapour. I’m not sure what the difference would be but I’m sure there would be albedo effects and that the lack of evapo-transpiration would have an effect.

    I don’t agree with this assertion. We don’t know what is happening inside the earth’s core to be making estimates about the temperature at the surface, in the atmosphere. At the moment we assume the core is a point source of energy and there is a temperature gradient based on empirical data taken inside to top <1% of sphere thickness at the crust vs the estimated mass of the planet. This is what I understand anyway, please correct me if I'm wrong. There are a whole lot of factors that would affect the temperature of the planet at different depths, particularly considering that we know the mantel has currents and hot spots. This and the existence of radioactive decay doesn't really give us anything more than a back of the envelop calculation of the temperature profile of the earth minus and atmosphere.

    Which is probably way off.

    We might have to investigate mantel whether and climate a bit more to get a read on what is happening above the crust. I'm of the opinion that volcanism is a significant driver in long term climate patterns. It's the underwater volcanoes which don't just blast heat off into space through the atmosphere which need to be investigated. Oceans retain the heat and can influence the climate over decades and centuries.

    I'm not aware of any research which has moved past the: volcanoes produce aerosols which cools the surface through albedo increase line of enquiry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    MattB @ 78.

    Matt, I don’t see that you have to join any party. For me it’s gone well beyond politics and Australia’s future economic solvency and progress is at stake. Let’s stop the carbon tax nonsense now and worry about the politics later. I may be wrong, but I somehow sense that you don’t really believe the idiotic position that Man can do anything significant to stop either global warming or cooling, which happens due to natural variability all the time, nor do I think you really support some of the extreme views and hare-brained solutions proposed by some of the alarmist AGW lobby.

    I’ve lived on this planet for 78 years and even in that relatively short time have seen a lot of so-called “weird weather” variously deemed to have been caused by too many cars, too many planes, too many wars, A-bomb tests, H-bomb tests and many other “causes” popular with the resident alarmists of the particular time.

    However, I have never seen such a mass deception visited with such intensity on a gullible public, some of whom are all too ready for their own reasons to further promote and perpetuate the myth of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    Listening to Julia Gillard today, recycling all the idiotic alarmist garbage of Hansen, Flannery, Karoly, Garnaut,the UNIPCC and other vested interests, absolutely sickened me and made me more determined to do all in my power to try and stop this madness before it does more untold damage to so many lives.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Tim @ 188

    Agree – the MSM is being very quiet about where the money will go. In fact, the government is furiously backpedalling about the money it will collect anyway. Everyone, it seems, will be “compensated”. Then what’s the point? If it were supposed to control carbon dioxide “pollution” then surely the idea would be to discourage CO2 emissions.

    The government and the media are all very quiet on the cost of the carbon tax and the quantitative benefits it would generate. Do they know the answers to these questions? Dr. Evans (above) seems to…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Waffle:
    you must have read my mind. The Earth has a mass of 6×10^24kg – 4 million times greater than the oceans. Most of the volcanoes are underwater so their energy is dumped straight into the oceans which in turn heat the atmosphere.

    Interestingly enough volcanic activity appears to be periodic and corresponds well with climate cycles such as El Nino.

    AGW is brilliant hypothesis – as long as your ignore every other possible explanation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    MattB

    Humbug – I have no accurate answer for the Q, but if I was going to have a quick 1st principles derivationit would go like this:

    If the sun turned off we are looking at say 5 days until the earth would lose the heat from the atmosphere… so I’d calculate the # CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and take an average of 5 days for rate of loss of heat. # molecules / time to cool = average length of time for a photon to leave the atmosphere.

    Bananabender your problem is it assumes a clear path to outer space with no intermittend excitement of other CO2 molecules on the way, and also instant re-emmission from the excited state of the CO2 molecule.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Keith H : “I may be wrong, but I somehow sense that you don’t really believe the idiotic position that Man can do anything significant to stop either global warming or cooling, ”

    You are wrong:) I can’t believe people hold the idiotic position that we could do whatever we wanted to the planet without having a serious impact on the planet. That seems to stem from some misinterpreted Christian view we were given the earth to exploit by god.

    We could, for example, have a massive nuclear war and pretty much screw the place up for ourselves. Of course the “planet” will carry on regardless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Keith… “Matt, I don’t see that you have to join any party. For me it’s gone well beyond politics and Australia’s future economic solvency and progress is at stake. ” you may have missed it from my lack of science and enjoyment of arguing obscure points, but I quite fancy political life.. if only all parties didn;t disappoint me. I’m actually a local political here in Perth. Town councillor – nothing too flash.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    p.s. my hot time is that very shortly we’ll e given an option in Australia…. AGW is real, we can either deny, go nuclear, or adopt a carbon tax/ets… as being the only real options available to us. This nuclear card, which I loathe in principal, may just work in Julia’s favour.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Althouh in 197n I’m assuming every CO2 molecule is excited… which it isn’t, so it needs to be only a fraction of CO2 molecules but I don;t know that fraction.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    I have posted here on the odd occasion mainly to ask question about global warming.I have hardly had an answer.Maybe the questions were just to stupid to warrant a response.I posted another tonight which seems to have gone down the bore hole.Seeing how I support the anti global warming stance I thought this blog might have welcomed such support but alas it appears not.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Or is it simpler… it takes 5 days for all photons to leave – ie earth to cool if sun went out (very approx), therefore the average residency would be 2.5 days….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB @ 157

    Not only do we agree, but Mark D has a good comment on an ABC Drum/Unleashed blog where my almost identical comment from a couple of hours earlier appears to have been moderated:) Do some of these Drum bloggers just imagine an entirely different universe to the one we are actually living in?

    It wasn’t me Matt but if it was good, paste it here. I haven’t posted to the Drum Unleashed for quite a while.

    Odd though, you mentioning different universes, I’m beginning to think I was right that someone else (much more skeptical) has stolen your laptop and is pretending to be you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    It must be just you I still seem to be p*ssing everyone else off:)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    rukidding:
    March 17th, 2011 at 12:58 am

    I have posted here on the odd occasion mainly to ask question about global warming.I have hardly had an answer.Maybe the questions were just to stupid to warrant a response.I posted another tonight which seems to have gone down the bore hole.

    I just answered a post of yours (with a couple of links) over on the “(Un)Skeptical Science uses unmeasurable fudge factors” thread. (#184)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    MattB @ 199

    You disappoint me Matt, but that’s neither here nor there. We’ve got a few wannabes somewhat like you in Tasmania – one, a lawyer by the name of Greg Barns who has hawked himself round most of the parties but none will a bar of him (no pun intended).

    Andrew Wilkie was another one who did the same and to my everlasting chagrin, thinking he had no chance as an Independent, with my preference vote I inadvertently helped elect him. Like many others, I will not make that mistake again!!

    As to the truth or otherwise of the hypothesis of AGW, I’m still waiting for a response to a request I believe I made of you (and/or any other AGW believer) sometime last year.

    Name one climate or weather event in which the level of CO2 can be shown to have had a measurable influence as a cause, together with empirical evidence of same and in which natural variability can be ruled out as the principal factor.

    I thought that when CO2 was chosen as the villain many years ago it was so ridiculous that the theory would never gain traction, particularly when it’s main proponent was environmental nutter and irrational serial fossil-fuel hater James Hansen as the chief barrow pusher. Still, it was the only thing they could think of that could be linked to fossil fuels, and even though risng CO2 does not cause, but follows warming, the correlation made for a scary looking graph for anyone stupid enough not to realise it represented fractions of parts per millions!

    What I didn’t realise then was the main agenda of the UN to transfer assets from the West to Third World countries, as set out in the UNIPCC’s Ottmar Edenhofer’s interview in November 2010 before Cancun, and the powerful financial forces like Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and other carpet baggers who could see huge amounts of profits to be made by hijacking no doubt genuinely-held concerns by some woolly-headed idealistic environmentalists.

    Governments soon cottoned on to the idea as they could see a wonderful way of obtaining a “Magic Pudding” Tax as a source of funding and replenishment for their wasteful extravagances, in the guise of “saving the planet”!

    Who in their wildest dreams would have thought that an essential life-sustaining gas making up an almost infinitesimal proportion of the atmosphere, could have been declared a pollutant, turned into a planet-destroying monster and that a gullible proportion of the population would be begging the Government to impose a job- and industry-exporting Tax with the only firm detail given when announced being that “prices will rise, that’s what it’s designed to do”!!

    Hopefully, sanity will prevail before too much damage is done to the people of the country I love.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Bananabender @ 192

    I was being facetious.

    Argh, where’s the damn sarcasm font when you need it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Bananabender your problem is it assumes a clear path to outer space with no intermittend excitement of other CO2 molecules on the way, and also instant re-emmission from the excited state of the CO2 molecule.

    In pactice this rarely happens; the re-emission isn’t instant, there’s a (tiny) period of time of time where the vibrationally excited Co2 molecule is likely to re-emit. Within the troposphere at least, molecular collions occur so rapidly that the excited state of the Co2 molecule is extinguished (carried away as linear kinetic energy) before it has a “chance” to re-emit. Co2 doesn’t tend to emit at all within the troposhere in agreement with equipartion.

    It was actually Eli Rabbet that got me to wrap my head around this idea after I posted a few questions on Real Climate. I also confirmed it for myself in a Physical Chemistry text book or two.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    I been away from the computer for a while (I have real work)
    But looking through the string of posts from sharky the AGW pattern emerges clearly.
    Step one: @ 112 make an authoritative hand waving statement
    Step two: @127 and @143 if questioned dazzle with science, and imply that the person asking the question is not sufficiently well educated to understand.
    I suspect that in the academic world where self-esteem is closely tied to education levels this is a very effective strategy. However in the real world, where people obtain self-esteem from other areas it’s not very effective at all and I think some of the academics have a bit of trouble getting their heads around this.
    Step three: @160 Baffle with bull
    Step four: @166 Ad hom
    Lionell attempted to engage using logic. But if the use of logic was allowed we wouldn’t be where we are now AGW would never have got off the ground


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Waffle @ 193

    Is there some relevance to your post?

    MattB @ 201

    A “carbon” tax won’t reduce emissions if there are no alternatives to carbon based fuels. It will only make us all poorer as the government pours the money into the ratholes of government schemes instead of it going into productive investment to to buy things people actually want or need.

    As for finding out AGW is real and a problem, we’ve been working on that for more than 25 years and have come up with nothing except that the AGW conjecture appears to be contradicted by observational evidence. Don’t hold your breath.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Keith H @ 208:

    If increased CO2 follows a warming period, could its increase denote a temperature stabilising factor? I note that the planet Mars has 95.3 % CO2 in its atmosphere and an average temperature of minus 46 degrees Celcius.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    BobC@207

    Thanks for the reply I have downloaded the file and will have a good look at it.
    I need to apologise to the blog.How the post got to that thread I can only assume was a bad case of finger trouble.Sorry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    chris

    Keith H @ 208: Thats too funny, but could be true, I have seen no evidence that anyone fully understands our climate, I do see a whole lot of lies and fraud on the AGW side though! have the glaciers that drove the Vikings out of Greenland all been uncovered yet? I dont think so, last news I heard, this year was an interview with a farmer there, and this mind you was to “prove” the dangers of CO2. He stated that as the viking fields defrost he is getting more usable land every year. All I see is it is not yet as warm as when the fields were first created, less than 600 years ago, thats a proxy I can believe in.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Re Binny @211
    Here’s my take on our thread:
    Binny @108 – “If you don’t have an endless positive feedback loop with water vapour you don’t have a catastrophe”
    Sharky @112 – “The positive feedback response only gets applied once.”
    Lionell @116 – “How does water know the difference between a temperature rise from other than water and water itself?”
    Binny @122 – “Now that’s something I’ve never heard before” + slight Ad Hom re logic.
    Sharky @127 – quick explanation of control system feedback as to why the value only gets applied once + joke about lighting a match.
    Lionell @136 – repeated question and big laundry list of basic physic questions
    Sharky @143 – longer explanation of control system feedback as to why the value only gets applied once + expressed annoyance at laundry list

    So far so good, everyone has been mostly polite.

    Lionell @146 – still doesn’t get how recursive feedback can approach a fixed value + significant Ad Homs about “real” science.
    Sharky @160 – defense for using example numbers for the purpose of showing a concept + background on where water vapour fits in with the whole climate sensitivity big picture.
    Lionell @163 – rant about how I didn’t use “real” numbers, refute that I had anything to say of value.
    Sharky @166 – suggested Lionell’s head exploded as the reason for his irrational rant (admittedly a bit Ad Hom).

    The question is not do I think I’m more academically qualified as an engineer to try to explain control system feedbacks, but did you guys actually learn anything?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    No derivation of the Greenhouse Effect based on physics and chemistry first principles has ever been published. It is a half-baked 19th century fantasy based on the false assumption that atoms are solid bodies and that no other processes such as convection occur in the atmosphere.

    The entire argument about GHGs is moot because the Earth is surrounded by a vacuum. This allows expansion of the atmosphere with no net increase in temperature.

    The reality is the atmosphere is heated by conduction, convection and the latent heat of condensation of water. This heat is advected to the upper atmosphere and radiated into space.

    The temperature of planetary atmospheres is a direct function of atmospheric density. When compensations are made for insolation and atmospheric pressure Mars, Venus and Earth all have very similar temperatures. ie Venus’ upper atmosphere temperature at 1Bar is very similar to Earth’s surface. Mars surface temperature and pressure is virtually identical to the stratosphere on Earth


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    The entire argument about GHGs is moot because the Earth is surrounded by a vacuum. This allows expansion of the atmosphere with no net increase in temperature.

    That’s a damn good point, I’m guessing volume is always kept constant in the desktop experiments where IR heats a cylindrical volume of air. The principle your espousing would be true for the atmosphere regardless of the source of warming right?

    I’ve seen other references to the similarity of planetary temperatures at 1bar atmosphere recently, can’t remember where though, can you link?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Mike W:
    March 17th, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    That’s a damn good point, I’m guessing volume is always kept constant in the desktop experiments where IR heats a cylindrical volume of air.

    The volume is kept constant. So the pressure and temperature must increase according to the Ideal Gas Law: pV=nRT

    However if the experiment was done in a large room you would simply get spectrophotometric absorption in the outer electron orbitals. The IR energy would be instantaneously re-radiated with no heating.

    The principle your espousing would be true for the atmosphere regardless of the source of warming right?

    Yes. The basic principle of Conservation of Energy always applies.

    We know for a fact that the thermosphere actually expands and shrinks twice a day. This must be considered to adjust for drag in Low Earth Orbit satellites.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    BobC@207

    Thanks BobC most of that went over my head at about 20000ft.
    But do I read correctly that they are suggesting that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere maybe a result of ENSO activity and not fossil fuel.?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Occam

    How can anyone think this is worth doing, when the net result of $billions of carbon taxes will be a delay of global warming by less then two weeks by 2050?

    The calculations by Dr Evans seem correct, given that Australia produces 1.38% of all human CO2 emissions (which itself is around 2.5% of total emissions, including natural CO2).

    Dr Evans conclude that a 5% reduction of the Australian CO2 emissions will result in a 0.0007 degree cooling by 2050.

    Since the IPCC (2007) projects a 0.2 degree per decade warming rate, the 0.0007 degree cooling is the equivalent of a delay of the warming trend by 0.0007/0.02 = 0.035 years = 12.8 days.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Okay fair enough – we all carry our own prejudices, so I will concede that you were genuinely attempting to engage in debate.

    However I will ask the origins of your first statement because it’s something I’ve never heard before and implies a level of linear relationship between carbon dioxide levels and overall temperature that is not reflected in the actual records.

    It also completely nullifies the panic merchants who insist that we have to act now before we reach the tipping point and the situation spirals out of control.

    In fact what you’re saying, suggests that if we control the precise amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (something we are assured is possible, otherwise why the carbon taxes and trading schemes?) then we can precisely control the temperature of the planet.

    Which begs the question – exactly who decides what that temperature will be?

    I am not qualified to comment on your mathematical formula. However reducing anything to a mathematical formula, implies a controlled environment and precise knowledge of all inputs.

    Not something the atmosphere is noted for.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    re: Mike W:
    March 17th, 2011 at 3:41 pm

    Here is a calculation of Venus’ temperature using the Ideal Gas Law (the lhttp://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect-on-venus (last comment by Albert)

    PV = nRT
    where P is pressure in bars (92)
    V is volume in liters (1000)

    n is density/number of moles whish is 67000/44 (molecular mass of CO2) = 1522.7
    R is the universal constant of gases = 0.082

    And so, if you introduce magnitudes, you have T = 92 * 1000 = 1522.7/0.082
    92000/ 124.8 = 737 K

    737° K is 464° C, and so you have exactly the mean temperatures you find everywhere on Venus!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Delory

    Hi MattB,

    Sorry for the delayed reply – my net connection was down for the day.

    There are two basic ‘extremes’. For situations where there are there are much more incident photons than molecules capable of capturing them, then your ‘bucket model’ is appropriate. Every new molecule will be able to capture and store more of the incident energy, as there are lots of spare photons at the appropriate energy level. Adding extra molecules will increase the rate of energy storage. The rate of the incident photons is of less importance, as it is much greater than the number of available molecules able to absorb them. The system is ‘molecule limited’. The energy storage would reach saturation ‘rapidly’. It would be interesting to see what molecules can be modelled by this scenario – (ie. Look at the photon intensity of the solar radiation at the particular energies of interest for the given molecule, and determine what concentrations can be reasonably modelled by a ‘molecule limited’ model). I am sure this has been researched, but I am ignorant of the results. I would expect this sort of model to be appropriate for ‘trace’ molecules with very low concentrations… CO2 may fit this model – I do not know..

    At the other extreme is the situation where there are much more molecules ready to capture photons than there are photons (of the appropriate energy). This is where my interpretation of the ‘bucket model’ is appropriate. In that situation, the rate of energy being stored by the system is limited by the incident photon rate. Adding extra molecules will not increase the RATE of energy storage – (it will increase the TOTAL amount of energy storage, but not the RATE at which energy is stored). Again, I do not know the concentrations required for each type of molecule to fit this model. However I am very ‘suspicious’ that H20 would fit this critera, for the following reasons;
    1) H20 molecules are the primary molecule covering around 70% of the surface of the earth (with an average depth of 2 or 3 km)
    2) A large portion of the remaining 30% of the earth’s surface also contains H2O molecules in significant concentrations
    3) The atmosphere also contains a significant concentrations of H2O molecules.
    4) Most solar radiation is absorbed in the upper 200 meters of the ocean.
    5) It takes a ‘long time’ to heat the oceans.
    These suggest that H20 is a suitable molecule that fits the ‘incident photon rate limited’ model.

    I think that if CO2 concentrations increased – there would be a minor increase in additional energy storage (the extra CO2 molecules), but any effects due to H2O will be ‘incident photon rate limited’. Consequently, I conclude that it would not be possible to have ‘bigger AND more frequent’ storm events – as these are primarily driven by H2O molecules.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Binny @221

    The water vapour feedback effect is widely believed to be significant and positive, but not catastrophic in itself since it works quite safely with the other natural sources of warming that have occurred over the Earth’s history.

    The part where some AGW people get all “alarmist” and catastrophic is because (as Lionell said) the climate system is non-linear. There is alot of uncertainty as to what happens to the climate if you bump it up by 3°C or more because the Earth hasn’t been that hot for 30 million years, and alot has changed since then (humanity and land vegetation for starters).

    While I agree with basic AGW theory, I’m not particularly worried about catastrophic AGW and runaway temperatures. I just think now is the best time to start winding back the CO2 control knob rather than leave it until life gets a whole lot harder.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    @ bananabender

    Still digesting it all, just a couple of talking points in the mean time. I agree with you that the real atmosphere isn’t obliged to behave like a cylinder of air in the lab in an experiment designed to measure one specific response.

    I also agree that the simplest possible explanation with the fewest variables is probably the correct one (sounds familiar doesn’t it!). If the ideal gas laws are sufficient to explain the observed atmospheric temperatures then Occam’s razor would suggest there’s probably no need to favour more complex explanations.

    However if the experiment was done in a large room you would simply get spectrophotometric absorption in the outer electron orbitals. The IR energy would be instantaneously re-radiated with no heating.

    I almost dismissed this thinking you were talking about electrons jumping orbit, but now I think I get it, it’s the shared double bond of electrons that “feel” the absorbed IR.

    Why do you say the IR energy is re-radiated instantaneously? I’m of the understanding that at room pressures and temperatures, excited Co2 molecules are typically extinguished within picoseconds before the molecule can re-radiate. That is to say the molecular vibrational energy is transformed into linear molecular kinetic energy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    There are actually two quite separate phenomena involving CO2 and IR absorbance:

    a) Intra-molecular bond stretching which causes heating. This only occurs at two specific wavelengths – 246nm and 1500nm.
    b) Spectrophotometric absorbance of other shorter wavelengths which involves electron energy states but doesn’t cause heating.

    In reality CO2 is almost totally transparent to IR as far as heating occurs.

    Virtually all AGW proponents confuse the spectrophotometric (electron orbital) and bond stretching (heating) effects of IR on CO2. This creates the impression that CO2 is major contributor to atmospheric heating.

    However it all utterly irrelevant as the atmospheric temperature is primarily a molecular kinetic phenomenon not a radiative physics phenomenon. It really doesn’t matter what gases comprise the atmosphere as long as they remain in vapour form at planetary temperatures. The planet Mercury could hypothetically have a mercury (Hg) vapour atmosphere and it would have a very strong “Greenhouse Effect”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Sorry Mike I totally misread your post. I need to get more sleep. :)

    I have to say, I’m really getting into the discussion about the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere angle. It’s funny that climate scientist’s have described that in relation to ocean temperatures but it isn’t really factored into atmospheric calculations.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I just clicked away to check out WUWT and saw this article then I had an interesting idea.

    What if electromagnetic charge of solar flares disrupts our own magnetic field enough to cause tectonic disturbance?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    rukidding:
    March 17th, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    But do I read correctly that they are suggesting that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere maybe a result of ENSO activity and not fossil fuel.?

    That’s about right — I don’t think they are specifically claiming that they know exactly where the increase of CO2 is coming from, but the measured characteristics of it’s distribution in time are not consistent with the majority of it being from human fossil fuel burning.

    The other link shows that the measured behavior of CO2 (specifically atmospheric lifetime and residual) are also not consistent with anthropogenic sources being responsible for the majority of the last 50 years measured increase.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    sharky @225

    ‘I’m not particularly worried about catastrophic AGW and runaway temperatures’

    Welcome to the dark side you are now officially a sceptic. (I would advise you to watch your back for the people with the pitchforks and burning torches)

    The basic science behind the theory is sound/plausible – Technically correct.

    Did Bill have sex with ‘that’ woman? Depends on how you categorise a blow job doesn’t it, technically he didn’t. However I don’t think you will find many normal rational people who would agree with that.

    The extent of the water vapour feedback is a big issue and is where the debate should be focused.

    I realise your reference to the CO2 control knob is a throwaway line.

    Of course the knob you’re looking for is in fact the humanity/political control knob.
    And when you find where that is hidden I suggest you first use it to end war and poverty.
    Before we even think about trying control exactly how the oceans and atmosphere interact and exchange CO2
    Humanity has a very good history of dealing with ‘real’ crisis ‘when’ they happen and I have faith in future generations.

    Crying wolf has a tendency to just piss people off.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Binny @231

    I like to think humanity can walk and chew gum at the same time, the two issues aren’t mutually exclusive. My stance is I’d like to see the world reverse or at least halt the upward CO2 trend while we continue to gather more data.

    There are also plenty of good energy independence reasons for many countries to reduce fossil fuel usage, that can help offset the pain of transition.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Sharky @232
    I would like to see the world put an end to war and poverty.

    However I don’t confuse an idealistic fantasy with the realities of day-to-day life.
    The carbon tax has about as much chance of achieving its aim, as a ‘put an end to war and poverty tax’ would.

    The bottom line is we just have to learn to live with the realities of the world, and trust future generations to deal with future crisis if and when they happen.

    As I said before put a real crisis in front of humanity and they have a very good history of pulling together and solving it.

    The underlying problem with the left-wing intelligentsia is the way they love to ‘discuss’ idealistic problems and solutions. Without any consideration whatsoever as to whether the problem is real or the practicalities of implementing the solution is possible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    rukidding

    BobC@230
    Thanks again.I missed the first link did not see the brackets thought it was all the one link.
    So there could be another source of CO2? do you know of any papers or reviews that have rebuffed these papers.Surly the AGW crowd would be onto this like a seagull on a chip.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Binny @233

    You’ve hit upon the fundamental difference between many “right wing” conservatives and “left wing” progressives. Which is why you are correct in that the real issue from here is more political than scientific.

    Personally I hate discussing politics, which is a personal ideological thing anyway, and I’d rather stick to the science (which when done properly is free of bias either way). Both conservative and progressive governments have made good decisions in the past, and I hope they both continue to do so.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Sharky

    Personally I prefer a ‘realist’ and ‘idealist’ to ‘conservative’ and ’progressive’

    One solves problems in a practical manner, and the other thinks of problems that may or may not need solving.

    Both have their place in society, often the realist need the idealists to point out a problem and spur them into action.

    The situation only really gets out of control when the idealists are faced with trying to think of practical solutions to a non-existent problem by themselves. Because they refused to listen to the realists pointing out that there isn’t a problem.

    Catastrophic AGW parted company with science over a decade ago, since then has it as being a very convenient stalking horse for social engineering.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    Binny @236

    Agreed. With extreme views on either side of the issue I find the best course of action closer to the middle ground.

    Fund the science to learn more, launch more satellites, launch more ocean monitors, get more data to cover the entire planet above and below. Then we can fully understand what is currently happening, and better predict what will happen in the future.

    However we also need to begin readying ourselves now in case we get the conclusive answer we don’t like (that a lot more CO2 is going to make things bloody uncomfortable for everyone). Economies and the climate don’t turn on a dime, and no one wants to go through wartime deprivation to fight CO2 at the 11th hour.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Sometimes it takes war time deprivation to get people to pull together, and the 11th hour is often humanity’s finest.

    If necessary situation can be turned around relatively quickly, by swapping all baseload power to nuclear. The modern designs are very safe, and in spite of all the hype that 50-year-old design in Japan has stood up to a massive earthquake and tidal wave amazingly well.

    If this was combined with fertilizing the ocean with iron ore dust, I’m fairly confident that CO2 levels could be stabilised and reduced in less than a decade.
    However there would have to be a very clear and present crisis to keep the entire world to pulling together.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Binny

    As the developing worlds population grows wealthier and everyone can compete more equally for the food supply. Funding research to fully understand our climate systems, and hopefully make accurate long-term weather predictions (as in six months to a year or more) is a worthwhile investment, the resulting increase in farm production would more than pay for the research.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    chris

    There is too much funding, it just goes to the wrong place. As Japan shows we do not contro; anything. If you want to help dont buy anything made in China.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Binny:
    March 18th, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    Funding research to fully understand our climate systems, and hopefully make accurate long-term weather predictions (as in six months to a year or more) is a worthwhile investment, the resulting increase in farm production would more than pay for the research.

    Climate is chaotic and non-linear. By definition long term forecasting is literally impossible.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sharky

    I don’t know about the iron ore in the ocean solution, last I heard that experiment they did off Africa didn’t produce the effect they wanted. Mitigation is an expensive and second rate substitute for good planning in my book.

    Although I’ve read a couple of articles in the media about thorium reactors, they sound ideal compared to uranium based nuclear. I’d love to know why research was canned back in the 60′s…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    bananabender in 241. Is that true… well ok I bet that it will be colder next winter than next summer. Put your money where your mouth is.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    MattB:
    March 19th, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    Is that true… well ok I bet that it will be colder next winter than next summer. Put your money where your mouth is.

    What an idiotic statement. Of course it is colder in winter than summer. What has that got to do with longterm forecasting?

    Edward Lorenz demonstrated that climate cannot be predicted in one of the most cited (4000+ unique citations) papers in scientific history

    Edward N. Lorenz, “Deterministic non-periodic flow,” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, vol. 20, pages 130–141 (1963).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Sharky:
    March 18th, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    Although I’ve read a couple of articles in the media about thorium reactors, they sound ideal compared to uranium based nuclear. I’d love to know why research was canned back in the 60′s…

    Because they are complete and utter nonsense based on wishful thinking not real science. They are no safer than a properly designed conventional reactors and require weapons grade plutonium or U235 as a neutron source. They also produce U233 as a byproduct which can be used to make weapons.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    chris

    MattB are you simple? it was irony and as it happens a better forcast than the paid whores in the met office manage with their corrupt AGW data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Ok bananabender… I’ll go out on a limb and bet that it will be colder in winter 3000 than Summer 3000. Is a thousand years long term enough for you;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Sharky and Banabender

    Here is a video giving a good comparison of urananium and thorium from Sunsettommy who posts on here at times

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-1145-post-8160.html#pid8160


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Wow bananabender in 245 your ideas of thorium reactors are off the planet. Are you a greenpeace fundraiser?

    The real answer is that both Thorium and IFR technology are so damn efficient even the miners are not so keen. They have no champions, or at least had no champions, so they died a death.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB, you still aren’t yourself….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    rukidding:
    March 18th, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    BobC@230
    Thanks again.I missed the first link did not see the brackets thought it was all the one link.
    So there could be another source of CO2? do you know of any papers or reviews that have rebuffed these papers.Surly the AGW crowd would be onto this like a seagull on a chip.

    Sorry for the late reply. The AGW crowd won’t mention any data contradicting their hypothesis that they can’t explain away. RealClimate occasionally tries to do this, but their efforts fall far short of anything that could be reasonably published (even with the system of “Pal-Review” used in climate science).

    If they ever come up with a good rebuttal, you can be sure it will be widely publicized — then a lot of folks are going to be wondering why they have never heard of these studies before.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Luke N

    If the government were fair dinkum about reducing carbon emissions, wouldn’t it be a good idea to force new houses and new industrial buildings to have solar hot water and solar panels installed? The cost overall would not increase greatly over the term of the mortgage of 30 years. They are forcing Carbon Tax on us so why not see something for the money. They would be reducing carbon use as well as contributing to the power grid, as I do now. Will I still have to pay the carbon tax? I have solar hot water and solar panels. Forcing solar panels on new buildings would save the government billions of dollars instead of putting solar panels in the desert where they have to bring the power back to the cities, at great cost. It would be cheaper my way,and also create more work for the solar industry.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    F. Eckenhuijsen Smit

    By now it should be understandable for every human being ‒provided with a minimum of intelligence‒ that AGW CO2 (manmade CO2) with only 0,001152% of the atmosphere can never be the cause of a catastrophic global temperature rise.
    So I consider it very contra productive that there is still far too often talk ‒even by my fellow AGW CO2 “deniers”‒ that a negligible temperature rise might occur as a result of human consumption of hydrocarbons.
    And I consider it absolutely inadequate to make even such an infinite small allowance to the lying, swindling, fraudulent AGW CO2 “alarmists”, as they are the ultimate enemy of the free world ‒with their crazy windmill and CO2 sequestering plans, costing trillions €‒ and as such should not be given any trace of credit to their intolerable scheming through their protracted ugly misinformation, telling the uninformed that AGW CO2 is causing climate change and thus temperature change.
    This is for the well informed pure heresy as climate change is for 95% due to sun’s activity and variable cosmic ray quantity and intensity; no CO2 involved at all!
    Natural CO2 and AGW CO2 gas are the same and equally non toxic, innocuous, inert, colourless, odourless, tasteless, useful and very necessary for life as it has functioned for many millions of years on planet earth!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Allan Jones

    Now we have a quoted Labour price for a carbon tax to change to Gas from coal, it’s $40.00 per ton, the cost of new gas plants is about 43Billion the cost of solar and wind is 370 billion, thats 8.8 times more than gas, the carbon tax for solar and wind at 8.8 times is $369.00, when we see the projected cost of gas electricity it should be multiplied by 8.8 also to get some idea of your future bill for electricity using solar and wind with the added input of backup power as suggested by solar/wind proponents that could still be coal due to political decisions gone mad.
    The gas transferr is a normal technological change and can be done over time so it does not need a carbon tax, green armies and planting trees or soil conservation of carbon will help and we all ride bikes these days don’t we


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    IAN

    c’mon,

    its not like they are going to tax the air we breathe!

    WAIT A SECOND??


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] 6. Dr. David Evans, 5% reduction = 0.0007c quote 14 March 2011http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/carbon-tax-australia-welcome-to-futility-isl… └ Tags: ACTU, Ad, Campaign, Carbon Tax, Cate Blanchett, Climate, Climate Change, [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    matt

    just the fact that temperature will stop rising isn’t enough?????


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Evans, D., 2011. “Carbon tax and temperature. By how much will a carbon dioxide tax reduce Australia’s temperature?” http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/carbon-tax-australia-welcome-to-futility-island [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Chris Goodan

    Economy hasn’t tanked yet. Sky still holdin. What’s the fus about


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. (Available at: <http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/carbon-tax-australia-welcome-to-futility-island/&gt ;) . But their models exaggerate tenfold – in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] consommation d’électricité en Australie dès maintenant, pendant 40 ans, on obtiendrait une réduction de la température globale de l’ordre de 0.0154°C en 2050 (0.0031°C si l’on réduit de [...]


    Report this

    00