JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

A Handy-Dandy Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator

 Patrick J. Michaels and Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger have created a calculator of exactly how many degrees of global warming will be averted if the IPCC is right. I can’t think why the IPCC didn’t do this before.
For example, if all industrialized nations  achieve a 100% reduction  (that is, stop using coal, oil, gas, diesel, and avgas tomorrow*), then 87 years from now the world will be 0.352C cooler (assuming climate sensitivity is a high 4.5C and the models work, and nothing else changes in the atmosphere).
The great thing is you can adjust the parameters yourself to see how many ways Global Action does not add up.

Calculator from CATO.org (Click to go to the calculator)

Unfortunately it does not also project the costs. Version II perhaps?

*Please forgive me for that sweeping assumption. We all know that to get a true 100% reduction in CO2 emissions we’d need to do a lot more. Like building nuclear plants from handmade mud-bricks using solar powered trucks and wind-powered cranes. And no more flights to anywhere unless you have a pedal powered hang-glider or one of those marvelous solar planes that takes 2 months to cross the US.

Holidays in Hawaii would be for people who like to row (a lot).

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (61 votes cast)
A Handy-Dandy Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator, 9.4 out of 10 based on 61 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/l4tbr7d

152 comments to A Handy-Dandy Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator

  • #
    michael hart

    I think I’d feel a lot safer flying in a Zeppelin.

    40

    • #
      Manfred

      MH, the Flying Cigar even had a smoking room. Outstanding. I’ll join you.

      40

    • #
      Ace

      No wish to contradict your point, BUT:

      Actually one of the safest modes of travel that ever existed. A lot safer than horss. How many people died in the worst airship disaster? 35 people. There were 97 on board. Nearly twice as many survived as died. How many people have died in airplane crashes? Untold, no tally exists. Too many for record. How often does anybody survive an airplane crash? Unless its on the ground, almost never.

      The main obstacle to a modern airship renaissance is very undramatic but fundamental, thats ballast control. Airsphips were of greater danger to the ground crews than their passengers.

      20

  • #

    Heh. Not much reason to adjust the parameters, is there?
    Well played, Jo.

    40

  • #
  • #
    Yonniestone

    Wow, when does the board game come out?, pity the game “Headache” is already taken.

    20

  • #
    Manfred

    Holidays in Hawaii would be for people who like to row (a lot).

    The Green elite and their bureaucratic sponges will not be rowing. Not then or now, nor anytime soon. No chance.

    With an upcoming election, anyone who thinks Green politics is phosphate free soap powder, natural shampoo, free range eggs, windmills, and an absence of usual room service absolutely owes it to themselves and to their future progeny or future generations to read the utopian Green vision for the future. In a sense, a Green version of ‘Revelations’ it is that some may favour, but most will reflexively and rightly spurn. It is not the cosy ‘feel good’ politics of the armchair Green liberal progressive. No. It is instead far closer to the offerings of Pol Pot or Mao Zedong, the latter as if anyone needs reminding, who remains the leading genocidal maniac of all time.

    Read the following, a mouth watering glimpse from the link below, which is well worth the effort.

    ‘The Greens’ Agenda, in Their Own Words’ – Kevin Andrews

    For the Greens, a pristine global environment represents earthly perfection. It underpins their “ecological wisdom” and is at the core of the new ethic. It is to be protected and promoted at all costs. Hence, all old growth forests are to be locked up; logging is to be prohibited; wealth is to be scorned; economic growth is opposed; exclusive ownership of property is questioned; there should be a moratorium of fossil fuels exploration; dam construction should be discouraged; genetic engineering and agricultural monoculture is rejected; world trade should be reduced; and a barter economy encouraged.

    It explains why the Greens believe the world’s population is excessive and should be reduced, and why human consumption should be cut.

    The Greens support a moratorium on all new fossil fuel exploration and development. They are opposed to building any more coal-fired power stations, and would pressure existing ones by prohibiting any public funding of refurbishments. They would also prohibit the opening of new mines or expansion of any existing mines, hence phasing out coal exports, ending one of Australia’s largest export industries, and forcing other nations to use dirtier sources of coal.

    The Greens are also opposed to “any expansion of nuclear power” and where it exists, “will work to phase it out rapidly”. This means the ending of the exploration, mining and export of uranium from Australia. They would also close Lucas Heights, and prevent the import or export of all nuclear products.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/1/the-greens-agenda-in-their-own-words

    80

    • #
      Another Ian

      Re nuclear and nutrition –

      I wonder how they propose to handle the potassium problem?

      (Essential mineral with natural radioactive content)

      40

      • #
        Bulldust

        Most things one is exposed to in this world are radioactive to some degree. One is exposed to radiation every second of one’s life. Were we not adept at dealing with low dose rafiation biologically we would not exist. Many foods are irradiated to kill nasties. It is arguably the safest form of power generation, has medical uses, etc.

        But don’t try and convince a Green … they are a party of irrational scaremongerers.

        70

        • #
          Manfred

          There is evidence that suggests we are in fact well adapted to tolerate some radiation. This makes sense given the fact that Gaia is laden with radioactive elements. It is even suggested that the relationship between radiation and tissue damage at low doses is in fact a negative one. There may, it seems be epigenetic factors at play. Fascinating subject.

          20

          • #
            Ace

            Better man, according to …Ill admit…a TV documentary I once saw, low levels of radiation certainly enhance health.

            This week Ive discovered I have at least one radioactive lens in my camera collection. Millions were made. Im told that having it against your skin for an hour is equal to an X-ray exam.

            10

            • #

              Got any Voigtlander cameras. Dad had a beauty he purchased in 1958. Cost him an arm and a leg then, and it had Carl Zeiss lenses.

              Tony.

              00

              • #
                Gnome

                I have two, but only the manual one is any good because you can’t get the exposure meter to work on the automatic, and it won’t work without it. Older technology than current photovoltaics, but a precursor of things to come??

                (I honestly can’t remember what they called it, it wasn’t silicone but some other element, and it led to a life of about ten years and then you might as well throw the camera away. Great lenses and great shutter action- briefly.)

                10

              • #
                Ace

                Gnome, is it Cadmium Di-Sulphide (Cds)? The earliest autos were photovoltaic I thought.

                The only Voigtlander Ive got, I think, is a 110 format one. amazing they made them. This one has lost a bit somewhere here. But I have about 150 cameras so Im not looking for a little bit off a 110 in a hurry.

                The radioative lens I know I have is an Industar 52 on a Fed 3. I have two Fed 3, two Zorki 4s (a 4 and a K), a Zorki 1 (exact copy of a Leica 3) and about a dozen of their rival rangefinders (Canon, Olympus, Ricoh, Minolta, etc) but no Leica rangefinders. Although I do have a digital Leica, made by Panasonic and designed to be looked at (only modern camera I know with an enamelled effect exterior). Then of course the Big Boys in rangefinders, the Konishiroku Omega (6×7 format), the Mamiya Press 23 (6×9 format) and a gigantic Polaroid I cannot name but is equal to Qtr plate format. I used to own a Polaroid 600 SE, which is even bigger.

                Thats one part of my collection. I must hav loads of radioactive lenses, but no Geiger counter to identify them with.

                00

              • #
                Ace

                …Selenium cell is what it used to be called. Eg, on the front of a Zenit E, my first SLR.

                00

              • #
                Mark D.

                Cadmium Sulfide cells are photo resistors (requires a source of battery)
                Selenium cells are photo electric (produces it’s own power and pretty low at that)

                Cadmium Sulfide together with a battery provided better low light metering.

                00

              • #
                Ace

                How does a spot-meter woirk/
                I sold mine to a guy in Poland. It had been hanging around for a decade. literally. today, if you used it in theBritish street you]d probably get descended upon by armed police and shot dead.

                00

      • #
        bobl

        Interesting, since Coca Cola is a good source of dietary potassium, will carrying a can of coke across the border constitute smuggling?

        Absolute loons.

        00

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        The only solution is to ban that shit, “potassium,” like Greenpiss tried to do with “chlorine.”

        Wipe that crap off the periodic table of elements, I say

        10

    • #

      The Greens support a moratorium on [almost all forms of energy].

      But what about ugly killer windmills?
      Talk about creating a blighted landscape that is the antithesis of “a pristine earthly perfection.” And in the US alone windmills cause “an estimated 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities per year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities).” This is insanity. I’m not really a bird watcher, but I know this is just wrong. It’s criminal. Tear down these bird killing monsters!

      10

  • #
    Luther Bl't

    “Germans are spending about $110 billion on subsidies for solar panels. The net effect of all of Germany’s heavy investments in the first generation of ineffective renewables will postpone global warming by 37 hours until the end of the century.” Source: http://www.lomborg.com/content/2013-03-germany-pays-billions-delay-global-warming-37-hours

    I propose the introduction of a new general policy metric, LT(c), called the Lomborg Time, which calculates this value for any country ‘c’.

    I further propose that all IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers contain a table of Lomborg Times for all members of the UNO.

    70

    • #
      Scott

      I actually prefer this measure to the degrees saved.

      spend over 100 billion to offset the so called global warming by just over a day and a half.

      40

      • #
        Bulldust

        They often say that lotto is a tax on people who are bad at maths (stats). Perhaps we should add that ETS’s are a tax on populations that are bad at science.

        40

      • #
        bobl

        I’d rather degrees saved per billion spent though zero divided by anything is still zero.

        10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    As it stands, the application could accurately project the degree of gullibility of the user.

    Other parameters could be added to examine the degree that the user needed psychiatric help

    20

  • #
    David, UK

    The only improvement I would suggest would be to add a third parameter for cost, so that anyone can perform a quick (if crude) cost-benefit analysis, i.e. x-trillion dollars will buy your children’s children’s children y-hundredths of a degree cooling.

    50

    • #
      Eddie Sharpe

      …x-trillion dollars …

      Cost means nothing to Greenies. It’s other people’s money.
      You now… You should pay whatever it costs, as long as I don’t have to.
      Remember, Marxists have no sense of proportion.

      50

      • #

        Eddie, that’s cruel. The costs do matter to the Greens, I think they just have trouble counting…

        82

        • #
          crakar24

          They had no problem counting the number of seats at the last election, they had no problem counting the 10 Billion given to them and the 2 billion Krudd just took away and they had no problem counting the 46 billion they want to raise sorry tax out of us to spend when and where they want.

          Its not a problem with counting, the problem lies in not being able to see far enough ahead to make credible decisions welcome to the green world of unintended consequences

          73

        • #

          Jo,

          I am more with Eddie on this. The only costs that seem to matter to the Greens are an exaggerated view of the costs of global warming. They exaggerate on a number of different planes. That is of magnitude, likelihood, discount rate and weighting they give to the evidence. They also underestimate the ability of human beings (and other living things) to adapt to changes in environment. So even if we are to get 6 degrees of warming this century, the costs of that warming would be a tiny fraction of what the apocalyptic environmentalists project.
          They also have a highly naive view of policy. Greens/environmentalists do not critically evaluate the theoretical effectiveness of policy, ignore the unintended consequences, along with the need for intensive and dynamic project management of policy implementation. So even if we were facing certain climate apocalypse, the last people you would want to avert global disaster are the very people supporting current policy.

          00

  • #
    Peter S

    Jo,

    You didn’t mention shipping!

    10

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    I particularly like the choice in the calculator between the US and Industrialised Countries.

    It implies that the US no longer thinks of itself as an industrialised country.

    30

    • #
      AndyG55

      How do you think we feel down in in Australia.

      Industry…. kaput ! :-(

      All gone to China and India.

      50

    • #
      WheresWallace

      Who said the two were mutually exclusive?

      01

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Who said the two were mutually exclusive?

        The person who designed the calculator – they are radio buttons – mutually exclusive?

        Do try and keep up.

        20

        • #
          WheresWallace

          Radio buttons are mutually exclusive. The data they represent may not be.

          00

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I shall use very easy words to tell you that I get what you mean.

            One button is all the data, and the other button is only part of the data.

            So yes, I do see that.

            But the words used to tell you what the buttons mean, can be read two ways, and that was what the joke was about – it was all down to the way it was read.

            Now, I know that you do not have any sense of humour, but others here did get the joke, so when you complained, I just kept the joke going to see how much of a dweeb you would make yourself look. Going by your “BTW” comment to Crakar at 12.1.1.1, the joke is still running. Cool.

            10

      • #
    • #
      Pat Michaels

      We’re not! I just came back to DC from NYC on the train and you can see that there is no industry here anymore!

      PJM

      20

      • #
        Heywood

        G’day Dr Michaels.

        One of the commentators has taken issue with your calculator at this link. Perhaps you would like to address his concerns ??

        10

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        Did you go through Baltimore? Did you see what something looks like when people don’t work there any more?

        Thanks much, you greenie filth! You filthy scum have obliterated the people who gave you money!

        10

  • #
    AndyG55

    Um, I hate to criticise this, but …

    they need more decimal places in the output display…… for the more realistic cases.

    50

  • #
    WheresWallace

    Why is it climate skeptics suddenly have utmost faith in a web-based climate model?

    27

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I don’t think you can classify this as a climate model.

      It is just a calculator that applies the climate sensitivity calculaltions to some of the published propaganda numbers.

      What it does do, however, is demonstrate how ludicrous some of the social and economic predictions are, when you get to play with the basis for those predictions.

      50

      • #
        WheresWallace

        You should read the fine print.

        The results from our calculator are produced from climate change calculations performed using the MAGICC climate model simulator (MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change). MAGICC was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

        05

        • #
          crakar24

          WW,

          A CM will produce an output based on preconceived understandings of the climate, so what do we need to create a calculator such as this?

          1, we need a climate sensitivity (supplied by IPCC and various other scientific bodies, also note this figure is deduced via the climate models)
          2, We need an emissions scenario (how much CO2 emissions are reduced over a given number of years)

          So now turning our attention to the calculator, if you wished to calculate how much the temp will drop for a given reduction in CO2 over a given amount of years you can now calculate it (the calculator merely makes this job easier for us).

          So if we select Industrialised countries (thats everyone) and 100% reduction in co2 emission (utopian zero carbon world) and select a sensitivity value (IPCC of 3C (thats per doubling of co2 of course)) we get an answer and that answer is two fifths of five eights of fuckall or in laymans terms

          2050: 0.104°C
          2100: 0.278°C

          The result can be construed in two ways either we are wasting our time and money on this global warming crap or the models are bullshit/the people you look up to are taking the piss and stupid, stupid, stupid you are tooooooo dumb to see it.

          73

          • #
            WheresWallace

            So if we select Industrialised countries (thats everyone)

            No it isn’t.

            http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

            Our “Industrialized Countries” group is the OECD90 countries (which includes North America, Western Europe, and Australia, New Zealand and Japan.)

            11

            • #
              crakar24

              Once again JESUS F&^%ING WEPT you are just as stupid as you sound arent you, you poor dumb bastard i should feel sorry for you but for some reason i dont.

              The calculator gives us two choices, one choice is the United States of America and the second is Industrialised countries.

              When i said thats everyone i meant thats all the industrialised countries including the USA, conversely the alternative is just the USA.

              Now rather than trying to score cheap points on such minor issues could you please try and focus on the main points, thats if your IQ and level of education allow if not i suggest you just sit there and listen and learn.

              63

              • #
                WheresWallace

                When i said thats everyone i meant thats all the industrialised countries including the USA, conversely the alternative is just the USA.

                So your “everyone” is everyone except billions of people. Gotcha!

                BTW: perhaps you could explain to Rereke Whakaaro why mutually exclusive radio buttons does not mean mutually exclusive data.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/a-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator/#comment-1299379

                01

              • #
                crakar24

                No you moron the calculator looks at industrialised nations because they are the only ones in the gun to reduce carbon emissions.

                FFS you are a stupid dumb prick.

                Re RW and his radio buttons, i would not for one minute be so presumptuous so as to speak on his behalf.

                22

              • #
                WheresWallace

                No you moron the calculator looks at industrialised nations because they are the only ones in the gun to reduce carbon emissions.

                Please give us evidence instead of “crakar logic”. So you think China’s solar panels are putting out just as much carbon as their coal fired plants. Weird!

                Re RW and his radio buttons, i would not for one minute be so presumptuous so as to speak on his behalf.

                RW disagrees with you. [Snip]

                01

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I trust you crakar … just be gentle.

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                RW disagrees with you.

                No I don’t.

                10

              • #
                crakar24

                Wheres Wallace,

                Once again your lack of english comprehension skills come to the for.

                RW did not disagree with me he simply gave me permission to speak on his behalf, if i had of spoken on his behalf before he gave me permission to do so i might have appeared presumptuous.

                Crakar Logic (with a little help from the CIA) dictates that the following countries are considered to be industrialised or developed:

                According to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) World Fact Book, the following nations are classified as industrialized or developed countries: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, Canada, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hong Kong – China, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.

                There is a total of 34 countries here some are only “developed” i would suggest China would be considered “industrialised” and i have no idea what you mean by comparing China’s solar panel industry to its coal power industry. Remember the calculator looks at “industrialised” countries only because as i said before they are the ones in the gun to pay climate change compensation to all the rest.

                11

              • #
                crakar24

                Somewhere buried in all this crap

                http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html

                is a thing called Annex 1 which lists all the countries that are on the hook to reduce emissions ergo industrialised countries as per the calculator. Good luck to all those fool hearty enough to try and find it.

                11

              • #
                WheresWallace

                You words implie that you do not agree.

                Rereke Whakaaro says

                It implies that the US no longer thinks of itself as an industrialised country.

                crakar24 expletes

                When i said thats everyone i meant thats all the industrialised countries including the USA, conversely the alternative is just the USA.

                00

              • #
                WheresWallace

                i would suggest China would be considered “industrialised”

                And as I pointed out earlier, China is not included in the web-site psuedo modelling of “industrialised countries”.

                02

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You don’t know much about computer models do you?

          Models take considerable time to calculate a scenario. But when presented with exactly the same input parameters, (including identical seeds for any random number generators) a model will produce exactly the same output values.

          For a finite number of fixed choices, it therefore makes sense to record the output values for each combination, and use the “calculator” to do a simple select and display function.

          Hence my statement that I didn’t think you can classify this as a climate model.

          20

          • #
            WheresWallace

            The webpage itself is not a computer model, but the figures Joanne displays are from a computer model (albeit “modified” to exclude many counties).

            11

            • #

              Yes, hypothetically, if we assume the IPCC models are not junk (though we have proof they are) then we can calculate the warming that might possibly occur in the impossible event that our emissions fall by 100%.

              How much stock do you think we are placing on any of the models involved?

              40

            • #
              crakar24

              WW,

              “The webpage is not a computer model”

              Thank God you acknowledge this small fact.

              The figures provided by Jo are not from a computer model they are from the calculator. The knowledge or information/data used by the calculator to produce the temperature numbers are provided by a computer model.

              If you sat down and crunched the numbers provided to you by the IPCC then you would come up with a result, however the exercise would be painstakingly slow, the calculator makes it easy.

              Once more for clarity, it is a calculator, it uses data provided by climate science computer models, it does not calculate the temp by doing model runs, it calculates the temp by using data provided by computer models.

              I hope you can now see the error of your thinking.

              53

              • #
                WheresWallace

                I hope you can now see the error of your thinking.

                I already understood, so no error made except on your behalf.

                The point I make is that Jo’s post is reliant upon computer models, the same ones she has no faith in. Interesting!

                03

              • #
                crakar24

                Yes agreed the calculator is based upon the output of computer models, however your original point was that the calculator itself was a computer model.

                A slight shift in your thinking is a pleasant sight.

                Why does Jo have no faith in computer models?

                “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.” – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

                “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.” – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

                “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010.” Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

                11

              • #
                WheresWallace

                No faith? So no faith in the results she is presenting.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/a-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator/#comment-1299501

                (Your links leads to this: “So you’re telling me it could be worse? OMG!” ) CTS

                01

              • #
                WheresWallace

                @CTS, Yes it does. You are correct. That was intentional. Well doen. Top marks!

                01

          • #
            crakar24

            RW,

            You can liken this calculator to any other, there are two ways i can covert two compliment to Hex, one is with a pen and paper and the other is with a calculator.

            Using the calculator is easy and I will not model the hex value it will be calculated for me just the same as i can now calculate the futility of trying to achieve a zero carbon footprint.

            43

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Gottcha. I got me a HP RPN Scientific calculator. I know that will do twos complement calculations. The trouble is finding the dammed buttons on the thing.

              20

        • #
          Pat Michaels

          That’s the real name! I am not creative enough to have made that up!!

          20

    • #
      Backslider

      Why is it climate skeptics suddenly have utmost faith in a web-based climate model?

      C’mon then, refute the output of the calculator.

      30

  • #
    Coastal Col

    Jo,

    Have a look at Fiaona Harvey, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jul/22/climate-change-slowdown-warming-oceans She credits the IPCC.
    Isn’t this the original Micheal Mann hockey stick? In 2001, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prominently featured the hockey stick in its Third Assessment Report. Based on this evidence, the IPCC proclaimed that “the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years.”
    And then all hell broke loose.
    You know – the one in the middle of Climitgate?
    Yeah it was the one that was DEBUNKED by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.

    WHY is she using this?? is her intention to deliberately misslead the next generation of great unthinking??

    60

    • #
      crakar24

      CC,

      This is the kind of polished turds that warmbots feed on, they then come here spit the shit out.

      I like the way she references a graph that stops in 2000 to show how the heat should have continued to rise (red bit is not produced from actually data that was just Mann pen marks)but now has not (debunking the graph herself?).

      Another interesting fact is that the graph is of the Northern Hemisphere but most of the worlds oceans are in the south and just to show you how tricky and cunning the weather is she offers this

      The Met Office warned early in the summer that the UK could be in for a decade of “washout” summers, like those of the past six years, because of the effect of climate change on global weather systems, partly as a result of changes in wind patterns caused by the melting Arctic.

      But no sooner had the meteorologists made their prediction than the weather bucked this trend, with a shift in the Atlantic’s jet stream air circulation system giving rise to high-pressure weather fronts and a long period of settled sunny weather.

      Prediction: noun
      a statement about what you think will happen in the future.

      This is here just in case a warmbot contemplates thinking for itself, you see the met made a perfectly accurate prediction but then the weather “bucked the trend”. Its not their fault you see it was the weather so dont you go thinking that maybe their other predictions are duds just like this one.

      53

      • #
        Coastal Col

        Isn’t it luck for the Met that weather has nothing to do with Climate otherwise everyone would knowk they had no clue what was happening!!

        30

  • #
    realist

    Sounds like an idea for another electronic toy powered by a pedalled DC generator purchased from the school of the air museum. Do they have a preferred analaog model in a Green colour? Sounds like technology suitable for another excellent Policy on the run from Kev, for Labor politicians to use the output as “fact” to claim the high moral ground as the obvious solution to “the greatest moral challenge of our time”. The MSM would be ready to run with that and claim Australia is leading the world, again.

    The latest press release spells it out – “Every school hall with be provided with two of these wonderful energy saving technologies for every student to power the laptops ‘I’ gave them a few years ago”. A joint Policy initiative with the Minister for Health. “Students will be able to see how they are saving the world in real time, and become the fittest nation in the world”.

    Handy for a show and tell press conference with the ABC with Minister for Canute pedalling madly to show how bad warming up is going to be unless we change now otherwise he “we are in an unfolding crisis with another Minister resigning”, just so he can avoid a heart attack from having to pedal yet another of PM Kev’s policy intiatives. I’m sure Catalyst could also waste at least 20 minutes explaining its Green virtues.

    Then the Opposition with their Direct Action can point out it doesn’t provide a display with the benchmarks: “What is the base year for CO2?”; “The relationship between CO2 concentration from the Minister’s lungs is not a linear equation in its impact on reducing warming and his elevated heart rate has direct equivalence”. “Our policy is much better and will cost less”.

    “In our Direct Action policy we would add another generator on our bike so the output in reducing CO2 would be twice as effective as theirs”. “It would also serve a dual purpose benefit with our Weight Loss Policy, as every Minister would take turns to peddle their story line for energy co-generation”. “Additionally, an inverse proportional voting system will be implemented to require the minority Greens to have ten times as much time on their bike as other members in order to secure sufficient carbon credits that offsets their leader’s return trips across Bass Straight on the Green Viking Ship their energy saving policies propose to operate as the new Ferry to Tasmania”. All tongue in cheek, but virtually equivalent to the farce we already have.

    60

  • #
    pat

    speaking of numbers:

    Germany’s use of coal, gas for power jumps 12.4 pct: lobby
    FRANKFURT, July 23 (Reuters) – Germany’s green energy drive slipped in the first half of the year, with power generation from carbon-intensive fossil fuels coal and natural gas up 12.4 percent, data from industry lobby BDEW showed on Tuesday…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2477742?&ref=searchlist

    start all over again!

    23 July: RTCC: Ed King: UN climate change deal “may not be feasible” by 2015
    The 2015 UN climate summit in Paris could mark start of process to develop a global emissions treaty rather than end
    CAPTION: The UN says emission levels are 14% above what they need to be in 2020, warning an 8 gigatonne CO2 gap could emerge
    But a recent Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) meeting in Poland involving the USA, EU, China and the UN ended with a Chair’s Summary acknowledging that “some considered it would not be feasible to complete the process by 2015.”…
    There is no mention of flows of climate finance, which will disappoint many developing countries, but there is a commitment to explore ways of cutting pollution ahead of 2020, including increasing investment in the energy efficiency of buildings…
    Further discussion on mitigation commitments are expected to take place at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York in September, and at the main UN climate summit in Warsaw this November.
    “If we do not get the underlying frameworks in place I doubt whether countries will be politically ready to put forward mitigation targets,” said WWF International Climate Policy Advocate Tasneem Essop.
    “It’s essential in the next two years they start unpacking things like equity reference frameworks and the science review process so that when they do put numbers on the table we know that they are fair and ambitious.
    “If they could spend the next two years sorting that out and reaching strong agreements on that by 2015 at least, there’s nothing to stop them from looking at the numbers.”
    While the MEF involves only a small number of countries, members like China, the USA and the EU are hugely influential in the international climate policy arena…
    http://www.rtcc.org/2013/07/23/un-climate-change-deal-may-not-be-feasible-by-2015/

    00

  • #
    pat

    22 July: RTCC: Ed King: UN climate science body IPCC condemns AR5 report leak
    IPCC says reports suggesting emissions link to climate change is weak are “misleading” and “premature”
    Last week The Economist published a table it says could feature in the forthcoming fifth assessment report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    The figures reveal that carbon dioxide could have a smaller impact on global temperatures than scientists predicted in 2007, opening the possibility greenhouse gas emissions do not have to be radically cut…
    Former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer has already drawn his own conclusion, claiming that it will “scare the wits out of everybody”…
    AR5 is also likely to underpin efforts to create a global emissions deal in 2015, making its findings particularly relevant with the next major UN climate summit just four months away.
    ***The IPCC has already run a series of seminars for journalists in an attempt to clarify what it sees as important issues, while PR firm Havas is advising the UN Foundation on how best to explain the report’s findings.
    http://www.rtcc.org/2013/07/22/un-climate-science-body-ipcc-condemns-ar5-report-leak/

    00

  • #
    pat

    re Havas PR Company:

    Havas PR – About Us
    Together, we are one collective connected to one commitment: Future First
    http://havaspr.com/?page_id=1206

    the Aussie connection:

    Havas PR: Red Agency Australia
    http://havaspr.com/?page_id=243

    11 June: Mumbrella: James Wright named APAC boss of Havas PR
    In the two years since he joined Red Agency in April 2011, the Brit is credited with doubling the size of the agency, winning new clients including Accor, Origin Energy, Yahoo!7 and WWF…
    A spokesman said that Wright’s brief will not include PR agency One Green Bean, which Havas acquired an interest in through its acquisition of Host last year.
    http://mumbrella.com.au/james-wright-named-apac-boss-of-havas-pr-160398

    00

  • #
    A C of Adelaide

    Dont like to change the subject but I’m a huge fan of Professor Akasofu – and he has an update of his 2009 graph in a paper advertised on HOCKEY SCHTICK

    “On the Present Halting of Global Warming”

    50

  • #
    sophocles

    … if all industrialized nations achieve a 100% reduction …

    Ouch. A 100% reduction would require a complete sterilisation
    of the landscape! Death to all sources of CO2. It would create a whole new meaning for “genocide.”

    How about let’s not do it?

    30

  • #

    Jo is right. I stayed in a hotel in Hawaii and all the couple next door did was row.

    41

  • #
    Hasbeen

    Stop knocking it folks.

    Can’t you see a return of the romance of sail as the vehicle of world trade? Can’t you imagine the photo opportunity of Sydney harbor again filled with 250 Ft masts & all that beautiful rigging, [if we still have cameras of course].

    I’m sure the Greens would make it a prerequisite of leadership to have completed 3 round world trips in a windjammer, to help feed the hungry of course.

    I can see it now. The 2 harpies from the south, 200 foot up in the rigging, clawing in sail in a gale, in the middle of winter, south of cape horn. Welcome to the real world girls.

    Of course those ropes will have to be made of hemp, no plastics remember. From what acquaintance I have of greenies however, I doubt they would get to the horn. They would have smoked all that hemp, long before they got that far.

    With their practical well thought out policies, I’m amazed that KRuddy has not been attracted to join them. Birds of a feather & all that don’t you know.

    50

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I’m surprised Pat Michaels put this out, frankly. He’s as hardened about this as I am, he ought to be out there talking about sanity instead of games like this as far as I am concerned.

    The whole charade is completely insane, how long will it be before the West collects their marbles again I wonder

    20

    • #
      Ace

      I think thats the point.

      20

      • #
        Brian G Valentine

        These arguments have meant nothing in the past to anyone with a proclivity to taxing, and they won’t do anything now.

        Until they are told they are complete nitwits with no ifs ands or buts – and repeatedly – nothing is going to sink in

        20

        • #
          Mark D.

          Until they are told they are complete nitwits with no ifs ands or buts – and repeatedly – nothing is going to sink in

          Ok:
          [SNIP... no we don't need to resort to unsubstantiated insults - J]

          Have I forgotten any?

          50

          • #

            yes. Myrrh, that iron sun guy… and the one who thinks everything is a conspiracy.

            This brings me to the “royal” birth. Where is the evidence that this birth took place or that there was ever a pregnancy? There is a group out there who have captured the royal family and are placing their own kind disguised as newborns.

            02

            • #
              Backslider

              Where is the evidence that this birth took place or that there was ever a pregnancy?

              It’s on Youtube, so it must be true… just ask Blackidiotthe4th!

              20

            • #

              It’s Off Topic, I know, but hey, we’re well down this list of Comments anyway, so forgive me a minute here.

              Speaking of MSDS, (and we aren’t but some might get the link right) in an earlier life, after I got out of the RAAF, I was a State licensed and accredited WHSO (Workplace Health and Safety Officer) which is the Qld term for Occupational Health and Safety. I was at a printing Company, and unlike the Air Force, where I found most students to be attentive, dealing with civilians was at the best challenging, as their interest level in Health and Safety in the Workplace was ho hum at best.

              Each Friday afternoon, I would host hour long talks for groups of the workers there, explaining some of the things relevant to them about safety in the work that they did.

              I came to the talk about safety with chemicals, and having done Months of work chasing down all the MSDS for the chemicals used at this particular Printing Company, and you would be surprised just how many, almost a hundred of them.

              I knew that explaining MSDS to them was not going to be easy, as they are full of so much jargon.

              I got the first group in, and as usual, the three Company Directors were sitting in on the first group as well, so I had a group of around fifteen people.

              I pulled out a small 4 page MSDS, and without telling them what it was for, adding some initial explanation, I started reading from it, highlighting some areas that I thought would need some accentuation, and looking up at the audience for effect to get the point across. I could see that they were all actually listening quite attentively, and on a couple of occasions, I was asked to repeat some sections and then add a small explanation.

              At the finish of the time it took to read this one MSDS, some of them were actually quite horrified. We talked for a further period and then one of them asked the most obvious of all questions, one I was waiting for without actually telling them what it was. That question was what product this MSDS referred to.

              I then pulled the product out of my briefcase, a bottle of the Dawn dishwashing liquid, you know, ‘Pretty green.’ followed by ‘You know you’re soaking in it.’

              The looks on their faces were priceless.

              From that point on, MSDS became something a lot easier to explain, and in fact something everyone referred to after that …… before they started to use that specific chemical, because we had to display all those MSDS in the workplace so they could be readily accessed.

              Months earlier I had also spent some weeks researching gloves for them to wear when handling and using these chemicals. They had to be thin enough to wear without losing feel, strong enough, and relevant to the chemicals being used, and there are literally hundreds of different gloves.

              The ones I found came in boxes, similar to a Kleenex box, each box containing 100 gloves. Single use, thin, sturdy, and applicable to the chemicals.

              After explaining it to management, I purchased a large box of 100 small boxes, a fraction of the cost buying in bulk like this. Management wasn’t all that impressed when they were hardly used, and it took me almost twelve weeks to expire that 100 boxes in the large box, the thinking being that this was a waste of money if no one ever used them.

              Not long after the MSDS series of talks, use of these gloves picked up, and when my Primary work position at that Company was made redundant, and I was laid off, they were going through one of those large boxes (each containing 100 smaller boxes with 100 gloves in each small box) every eight to ten working days.

              I even got to the stage where some chemicals that the Company had always used I found replacements for, as the original was just so toxic.

              It was a lot of work, being a WHSO, but sometimes the satisfaction level was beyond words, and that simple bottle of Dawn dish soap gave me one of my most satisfying moments.

              Then the bastards laid me off. Sometimes you never know. The underlying feeling I got was that I was making things too hard for them, but hey, they weren’t going to tell me that.

              Sorry to go away from the subject like this, and you only need to take Gee Aye’s link and scroll to see where this came from.

              Tony.

              10

              • #

                Incidentally, I had to phone each chemical supplier to chase up copies of those MSDS.

                After explaining who I was and the Company I worked for, I was sometimes treated almost offhandedly, and always asked to be put through to their technical support section.

                As soon as I mentioned ….. MSDS ….. you should have heard how their attitude changed. It was like a magic wand had suddenly been waved over the phone.

                I never had the slightest problem getting any of those MSDS, most arriving the next day in the mail, some even express post.

                Tony.

                30

              • #

                Thanks for the entertainment but Tony it is mild on your hands while you’re doing dishes! I do believe though that it was plain old green Palmolive.

                Anyway, just for your information MSDS’s are now, by international convention, SDS’s. I can see why. “Material” is a bit of a vague term and it allows the format to be expanded into other areas.

                A consequence of this is though that there are are now SDS’s for SDS

                00

              • #
                Yonniestone

                I hear ya Tony, I’ve done a lot of OH&S over the years and MSDS’s or SDS’s are very important when heating or cutting materials.

                One was Trefolex, the green paste for drilling & tapping steel, maybe 10 years ago a warning was issued over the smoke that came from using Trefolex at high speed was carcinogenic and shouldn’t be inhaled.
                I still use it today but never found any such warning in the Trefolex MSDS, it only says use for hand tools so we erred on the side of caution and only used it for that.

                You’d be a good OH&S bloke, have you thought about doing it again? some sectors are screaming out for experienced Safety people, our OH&S bloke left to do it full time and got an amazing package.

                21

          • #
            crakar24

            Yes, their initials are G and A

            43

          • #
            Heywood

            “Have I forgotten any?”

            Margot

            40

          • #
            Brian G Valentine

            That’s the way.

            Next, newspaper editors need to print this same message for the benefit of Tim Flannery, Christine Milne, David Suzuki, and the contemptible Bill McKibben.

            It will put a smile on a lot of faces, trust me.

            20

        • #
          Ace

          I totally agree. Humour is good to share amongst ourselves but it makes no difference whatsoever otherwise. Irony…the people we are against have utterly no awarenss of it. Truly, if you were to talk in a funny voice to take the piss, they would go away and say “…and did you hear the weird way he talks”, as a character judgement.

          Sarcasm is a bit more useful though. But it has to be laid on really THICK and obviously.

          00

    • #
      AndyG55

      hey, everyone is entitled to a bit of light-hearted frivolity in their life. :-)

      20

  • #

    That calculator is so noughties, make a lifestyle choice, push a button and bingo!. Congratulations you are now your own redeemer!. For light relief just change the channel. What a cunning metaphor for the entire Green mantra that calculator is.

    30

  • #
    Andrew

    Why do we assume that pedalling a generator is carbon neutral? Our bodies inefficiently turn food and O2 into CO2s, then inefficiently drive a generator to turn mechanical energy into electrical energy. I’m sure per kWh we are less green than a coal power station. Likewise rowing compared to a Diesel engine.

    Anyone with enough biomedical training to address that?

    10

  • #
    Michael

    The calculators a massive failure. Firstly it should have a global emissions checkbox. Also it should have a CO2 increasing scenario (business as usual). Therefore a true comparison can only occur by comparing the temperature that would have occurred under a business as usual scenario (CO2 is still increasing) and one where CO2 has been stopped. I am really not sure what the temperature is saying here. Is it .124 less than what? Today? What it would be under BAU? etc

    Does it also take into account global warming in the pipeline. For instance, nobody says that all the warming for given emissions occurs magically and instantaneously, its a planet. Some warming occurs over a short period of time due to lags like the oceans and Arctic warming effects on albedo etc.

    For instance, simplistically speaking there is still about 30 years of warming from current emissions. Also at 2ppm py (increasing) addition of CO2 that would give a global atmospheric CO2 at 2100 of about 580 – 600ppm. so thats another 50% on current levels. AT 4.5 sensitivity that would give about 2.25 additional heating. If you stopped all emissions today then you would have a few decades of warming but then you would see CO2 levels actually fall while nature absorbs some of our excess emissions. Disclaimer, this is just a thought experiment, not actual calculations or investigations but I cannot see where they get there figures from.

    To me it seems a very simplistic and uninformative magic trick designed to appeal to those with confirmation bias. Not a lot of fact involved.

    02

    • #
      Heywood

      Patrick J. Michaels is the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He was a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for thirty years. Michaels was a contributing author and is a reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change,Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials worldwide. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004. He has appeared on most of the worldwide major media. Michaels holds A.B. and S.M. degrees in biological sciences and plant ecology from the University of Chicago, and he received a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979.

      Feel free to contact the professor of climatology and let him know he is wrong.

      10

    • #
      Heywood

      pmichaels@cato.org

      Let us know how you go.

      10

    • #
      Michael

      I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying it is simplistic and designed to confirm peoples biases. AGW is a global problem, nobody serious about the problem expects and one group or area to solve it on their own. So the calculator does not tell me what I need to know. Firstly it needs to be global, secondly it needs to produce more details on its outcomes, and finally it needs to compare what would have occurred globally under a BAU with what would occur under a total and immediate stop globally.

      It probably correctly does exactly what it was designed to do, and that is my problem.

      02

  • #
    Michael

    hmmm, maybe he is wrong more often than you thought.

    “A review of claims made by the Cato Institute’s Patrick Michaels over the last quarter century shows that he has repeatedly been proven wrong over time. Michaels is one of a few contrarian climate scientists who is often featured in the media without disclosure of his funding from the fossil fuel industry. ”
    http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/07/10/patrick-michaels-catos-climate-expert-has-histo/194800

    02

    • #
      Dave

      Michael,

      “I am not saying he is wrong”
      “maybe he is wrong more often than you thought.”

      Are you for real?

      10

    • #
      Heywood

      So ad hominem attack it is. He has commented on this thread, why don’t you address him directly?

      10

    • #
      Michael

      I found the other information after I posted the first one. Not ad hominem, I only posted information I found that reported on some mistakes or incorrect predictions. Quite relevent in the context of putting him up as an expert and displaying all his qualifications. I am not an expert on individual scientists as I prefer to look at the whole body of actual climate science at large. You guys have the scientist fan clubs.

      03

      • #
        Heywood

        “ I only posted information I found that reported on some mistakes or incorrect predictions.”

        On an opinion blog no less. Do you have evidence of his funding? Do you have evidence that he was wrong? Do you have evidence that any possible funding has prejudiced his science?

        No opinion blogs please.

        10

      • #
        Dave

        Michael,

        You’re full of it,

        I found the other information after I posted the first one

        1. July 26, 2013 at 7:11 pm – I am not saying he is wrong.
        2. July 26, 2013 at 7:15 pm – Maybe he is wrong more often than you thought.

        So Mr. Michael, in 4 minutes you found other information?

        Amazing capabilities for a 32 country traveler.

        So show what information you found between 7.11pm and 7.15pm Mister Michael in 4 minutes from now?

        Then you say:

        I prefer to look at the whole body of actual climate science at large.

        But yet you still comment on individual scientists.

        Looks like you’re the leader of the fan club of the CAGW club.

        10

        • #
          Michael

          But yet you still comment on individual scientists.

          I am not the one that put him forward as your expert. Also all your critisism from a place that regularly attacks in very disparaging and insulting ways scientists like Hansen and Mann and also put down websites and people that have won science awards for their education of climate science, such as skepticalscience by John Cook, who mere mention brings many ad hominem attacks, claims of ‘cartoonist’ and never any discussion on the science in the article presented.

          Hypocritical

          So Mr. Michael, in 4 minutes you found other information?

          So what are you saying? Is it a big global conspiracy? For what benefit would I try to pretend in one minute that I am not sure about the guy and then 4 minutes later have found something when I knew it all along? What benefit did that get me? Seriously you guys will turn anything into a mountain.

          02

          • #
            Heywood

            “I am not the one that put him forward as your expert”

            Who said he was ‘their’ expert?? He created the calculator which you decided to comment on, and it was suggested you approach him directly.

            “Hypocritical”

            Obvious that you know what that means as it has been demonstrated by yourself a few times.

            “claims of ‘cartoonist’”

            Actually he referred to himself as a cartoonist.

            “This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.”

            http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

            “never any discussion on the science in the article presented.”

            SkepticalScience is an opinion blog. You refuse to discuss science in blog articles but you expect us to?? What was that word again??

            01

            • #
              Michael

              You refuse to discuss science in blog articles but you expect us to

              Actually I don’t expect you to. That is why the majority of the time I post to the actual peer reviewed science or actual scientific organisation web sites when discussing the science. The hypocrisy is all yours because it does not matter who is asking the question you guys put forward opinion blogs as answers the majority of the time, with very rarely putting forward an actual peer reviewed article or international science site.

              SkepticalScience is an opinion blog.

              Maybe, but it is one that has won awards for its focus on peer reviewed science and accurate presentation of the science in AGW.
              “For his work in communicating science to an online audience, Cook has won the 2011 Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.

              The prize is part of the Australian Museum Eureka Prizes, the most prestigious awards in Australian science. The winners were announced last night at a star-studded evening for the country’s most inspired minds.”
              http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/EEF99C60-76BC-11E0-A87E005056B06558?DISPLAYENTRY=true

              01

              • #
                Heywood

                Nice article on the mutual circle jerk that is the Eureka awards. This blog has won awards too. Big deal.

                You referred to two opinion blogs here, and your excuse for doing so was “It wasn’t science, just observations. I have presented loads of peer reveiwed(sic) science, These were comments on the models.”

                But when I linked to a blog here, which was a post by a real climate scientist, as opposed to a self confessed cartoonist, commenting on the models, WITH references to peer reviewed papers, your response was “Another opinion blog. Also as stated a hundred times the science is not based on the models”

                Hypocrisy in action.

                Now to go and watch some cars going around a race track spewing CO2. In honour of your posts, I think I’ll up my heater a few degrees and turn the spa on.

                10

              • #
                Heywood

                Yeah. Didn’t think you would acknowledge this one. Hypocrite.

                10

              • #
                Michael

                Didn’t think you would acknowledge this one. Hypocrite

                I have already said I accept that models are not perfect, and that my views are not based on models. My post was to point out the successes of the models, but in the end they are only projections on specific scenarios and will be subject to short term natural factors. The long term trend goes up, down and sideways but the overall trend is up. Often the up occurs in spurts, and we have reasons for that, their called natural factors. Obviously those cherry picking continuously ignore natural factors going on the assumption that the only driver of climate is CO2 while saying it is not a driver of climate.

                So there wasn’t really anything to add, I listed the successes, you listed its so called failures, but in the end the trends, science, experiments, fingerprints, observations etc all say the same thing, AGW is real and already occurring.

                00

              • #
                Heywood

                Dodge and avoid once again. I asked why it was Ok for you to refer to a blog but not others.

                I suspect that your arrogance has something to do with it, or the blog that you don’t like might hint at an inconvenient truth or two..

                00

          • #
            Dave

            Four minutes to change!
            One minute to pretend!

            Michael, you are correct, it is all a conspiracy against the world’s Greatest Climate Scientists (WGCS of CAGW).

            You should actually participate in Mr. Cook’s award winning skeptical site, it is truly the place you should be happy and also boost the massive readership. The site has very small number of comments, but the content is just amazing, that it leaves you stunned and unable to reply sometimes.

            Goodbye Madman Michael.

            10

    • #
      Michael

      Well, if he is reading this thread then I would like 2 figures going on the calculations and models he is using.
      1. What would be the temperature according to the model you used under a BAU scenario at 2100 where the CO2 rises continuously up to 580-600ppm globally.
      2. What would the temperature in 2100 be if we stopped our emissions of CO2 today globally according to the model you used.

      Simple questions, surely?

      02

  • #
    Steve

    Wind-powered cranes manufactured from steel coming from kilns made from hand-made bricks and using iron ore from mines dug by workers using their bare hands?

    00