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

The carbon tax figures are in: Australians paid $14b to reduce global emissions by 0.004%!

We can finally assess (sort of) the carbon tax in Australia. It ran for two years from July 2012 to July 2014 and cost Australians nearly $14 billion. The National Greenhouse Gas Inventory Office released Australian emissions statistics for the June Quarter of 2014. The headlines hitting the press this week are saying we reduced our emissions by 1.4%. The Greens are excited, but neither the journalists or the Greens have looked at the numbers.  Not only is this reduction pathetically small on a global scale, but it’s smaller than the “noise” in the adjustments. Like most official statistics the emissions data gets adjusted year after year, and often by 1 – 2%. We won’t really know what our emissions were, or what the fall was, for years to come… (if ever).

Spot the effect of the Australian carbon tax in the graph of emissions by sector below.  It operated for the last two years. The falls in electricity emissions started long before the carbon tax (and probably have more to do with the global financial crisis, a government unfriendly to small business, and the wild subsidies offered for solar power).

australian greenhouse emissions drop by sector electricity, industrial, agricultural

(Click to enlarge)

Did Australian industry “reduce” their emissions a year ahead of the carbon tax? Maybe. In anticipation of the pointless expense and increased sovereign risk, they may have shut down or moved overseas. Should we celebrate?

The cost-benefits of using a tax to change the weather

During the carbon tax period we “saved” something like 17Mt of CO2. That’s how much less we theoretically emitted compared to what we would have been produced if our emissions had stayed at the annual level they were at in June 2012 (subject to adjustment). Australia’s emissions are 1.5% of total human emissions, which are 4% of global emissions*. Those global emissions from all sources during the two years of the tax were roughly 416 Gt. Thus the carbon tax may have reduced global CO2 emissions by 0.004% and global temperatures by less.

The carbon tax is often framed as “revenue” or money raised, as if the government created some wealth. It should always be called a cost. And it’s not money from “polluters” — it’s money from Australians.

  • The carbon tax cost Australians $6.6 billion in 2012-2013  and cost $7.2 billion (projected) in 2013-14.
  • Over the two year period, that’s $13.8b for an average reduction of 0.004%.
  • The carbon tax was projected to cost $7.6 billion in 2014-15 if it had not been repealed.

The story of shifting data

Despite the headlines of “record falls” in Australian emissions, the data keeps changing, and the fall was about the same size as the adjustments. Each quarter, the numbers may be revised by up to 2%. In four of the last six years the annual emissions were announced and then were later raised. In two years the original estimate was similar to the last.

In other words, any 1% change is mere noise (in so many ways). Some of the time the headlines will have announced a fall in emissions that later vanished with data revision.

According to the most recent Excel data statistics I can find (subject to change), over the two years of the carbon tax our emissions started at 555Mt, fell to 550Mt and fell again to 542 Mt. As you can see by reading across the rows, the emissions may be adjusted for years after the fact. Who knows what Australia’s emissions of 2014 will be listed as 10 years from now.

Table 1: Running adjustments

As reported in June Q reports
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012x 2013x 2014x
Emissions in year to June 2008 544 551 549.5^ 548.9 545.5 552.4
Emissions in year to June 2009 544 548 547.9 541.3 554.2
Emissions in year to June 2010 548 548 545.4 540.1 548.3
Emissions in year to June 2011 546 551.2 541.2 552.8
Emissions in year to June 2012 550.9 546.2 554.9
Emissions in year to June 2013 545.9 550.2
Emissions in year to June 2014 542.6

These figures don’t count land use changes and forestry.

2014x, 2013x and 2012x are the Excel figures released with their respective June Quarterly reports – these are original emissions, not adjusted for seasonal effects or weather normalized. The other figures are “preliminary estimates” (like the 2014 figure) and come from the summaries and overviews issued each year. If they are adjusted for the weather or seasonality, I couldn’t find the note telling us so.

 

The Greens Leader Christine Milne thinks this 1.4% fall in emissions is embarrassing for the Abbott government. She looks at this graph and sees “success”. Its just as likely the cause of any flattening in our emissions is due to the Labor Party and Greens, or simply the GFC.

 Spot the difference Australia’s Carbon tax made. Anyone?

Other quarters may look different but for the June Quarter this is what “success” looks like:

….

Figures from the Dept of Environment.

Gareth Hutchins reports on the reductions in different sectors for the Age.

They show the electricity (minus 4 per cent), agriculture (minus 2.6 per cent), industrial processes (minus 1.3 per cent) and transport sectors (minus 0.4 per cent) all experienced declines in emissions this year.

Most emissions reductions came from electricity use.

(Click to enlarge)

Christine Milne gets excited over the noise:

Greens Leader Christine Milne has slammed the federal government for waiting until after the Lima Climate Change Conference to release the data, saying the figures show just how effective Australia’s carbon price was at bringing down pollution.

“This is the biggest ever drop recorded and the price made it happen,” Ms Milne told Fairfax Media.

Except it wasn’t the biggest drop – thank the GFC for that:

H/t to Tim Blair

REFERENCES

ENDNOTES

* Humans add about 8 Gt to the atmosphere annually. Plants, oceans and soils add 208Gt. We produce about 4% of global CO2 emissions.

^These figures was not in the Quarterly report but in the May 2010 Inventory for 2008 see volume 1. p XIII

** The arithmetic: Annual emissions for the year to June 2012 are estimated to be 554.9 Mt CO2-e. In 2012-13 that rose to 550.2 Mt CO2 e. In 2013-14 it fell to 542.6 Mt CO2-e3 (theoretically). In total over two years we produced 1092.8 Mt, instead of the 1109.8 Mt we would have produced if we stayed at the June 2012 annual level for two years. We saved 17Mt of CO2.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.8/10 (76 votes cast)
The carbon tax figures are in: Australians paid $14b to reduce global emissions by 0.004%!, 8.8 out of 10 based on 76 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/m7dyqs5

192 comments to The carbon tax figures are in: Australians paid $14b to reduce global emissions by 0.004%!

  • #
    A C Osborn

    Your Tax payers should be asking the question, where did the $13.8B go, who got their grubby hands on it.
    It was a complete waste of tax payers money, you said the “Greens are excited”, I wonder if they realise just how much the tax payers would have to pay to actually make a difference to world CO2 levels?
    To just get to 1% of world CO2 you are talking $2800B +, just think how much good could be done with that kind of money.
    They are all completely insane by a normal person’s standards.

    794

    • #

      Your Tax payers should be asking the question, where did the $13.8B go

      Also how much of it ended up putting CO2 into the atmosphere?

      283

    • #

      The Left’s politics are defined not by what they believe in but by what they are opposed to (or, more often, hate). For many on the Left, their hatred of fossil fuel is so obsessive it borders on being a mental disorder. But that is the case with everything the Left advocate. These people cannot be reasoned with, because their thought processes are not rational. Abbott does not understand this, which is why his government is in trouble.

      531

      • #
        Dariusz

        Last time I looked no melons arrived in a horse cart, on a bicycle or back to the future hovercraft at the parliament door.
        To stop this craziness we need to make politicians personally (legally and financially) responsible for any broken promise and make waste of money a criminal offence. They are running the biggest business in the country and hardly any of them had real job before. We vote for scum and scum we get

        142

      • #
        The Backslider

        For many on the Left, their hatred of fossil fuel is so obsessive it borders on being a mental disorder.

        Show me just one who is not entirely dependent on fossil fuels and I bet they will be some old hippie out in Mullumbimby living like a dog.

        50

  • #
    Mark D.

    Wait, I was told that the human contribution to atmospheric CO2 was KNOWN because of very accurate energy consumption metering fuel tax receipts and production records etc. Why do they need to “adjust” anything?

    313

    • #

      Mark, and that doesn’t even include the land use changes which amount to somewhere between 16 and 26MT of sequestration lately in Australia. Those amounts depend on assumptions about roots, microbes, fires, and accounting rules about how long forest keeps sequestering carbon.

      406

      • #
        A C Osborn

        Jo, have you seen the latest results from the new NOAA Satellite measuring atmospheric CO2, it confirms the JAXA results and also backs up Murrey salby’s contention that human CO2 is not doing anyting.

        WUWT (amongst others) has an article here
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/20/agu14-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-surprising-co2-emissions-in-southern-hemisphere/
        with a summary by Tim Ball here
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/21/settled-science-the-ipccs-premature-consensus-is-demonstrated-by-the-orbiting-carbon-observatory/

        275

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Just to clarify. From the DOE: sequestration savings since 1990 peaked at 26.4Mt CO2 in 2012 whilst deforestation additions bottomed at 32.8Mt CO2 in 2012. 25 years of deforestation ruling the roost.

        342

        • #

          I’m just giving examples of how many guesses it takes to estimate emissions, and I have barely got started…

          354

        • #
          NoFixedAddress

          Who gives a ‘continental’?

          If you believe it so important then only use wind and/or solar power.

          Some of us know that Earth has been starved for sufficient CO2 for some time.

          You are arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin head and it is an argument that is not worthy of science, or what used to be known as science.

          353

          • #
            NoFixedAddress

            BTW that at sillyfilly.

            25 years of deforestation!

            You mean the wildfires that have destroyed enormous areas of Australian forest because of blind ignorance.

            Which parts of Australia have you flown over @sillyfilly?

            332

            • #
              ROM

              To add to NoFixedAddress’s post @ #2.1.2.2.1 re SillyFilly’s usual mismashing of the facts.

              I started flying training in Tiger Moths in late 1959 in western Victoria, an agricultural region where tree and scrub clearing was done on a huge scale in the early 1900′s so as clear land to farm and produce grain and livestock for the what in the first half of the 20th century was the global super power, Great Britain and the British Empire.
              When the great hullabuloo started about the “environment” in the 1980′s, the “environment” being something that apparently only starts some distance outside of the big city limits if we are to believe the current meme, I started to take notice of the tree growth and extent while flying gliders over the whole of western Vic.

              Where once there were just scraggly Mallee, Gum and Buloke tree growth remaining along the vast network of criss crossing rural roads in the 1960′s there are now in the 2000′s, long lines of green well timbered road sides creating long often interconnecting tree and bush covered corridors for bird life.

              Where once looking across the vast landscape for a hundred plus kilometers in a clear day in nearly every direction when flying, large areas of bare cleared farm land with only what appeared to be remnant vegetation still clung on the roadsides and in the paddocks, that same land today now has large dark and even almost black looking areas that are trees and scrublands in every direction.
              Trees and scrublands areas appear very dark, even black when seen at low angles and at long distances whilst flying.

              The small clumps of trees left in the paddocks when the land was cleared for farming for cover for farm animals such as horses and sheep and cattle are gone as it takes a minimum size and number of trees which vary with species to maintain a viable biosphere for tree, bird, insect and animal life to be maintained. And if that minimum for any of those essential needs to maintain a viable localised bio-sphere of trees and etc is not met, the whole of the that small area of trees and plants and scrub will slowly decline and die out.

              But as seen from the air over those past decades , the larger and viable areas of trees and scrub lands have very significantly thickened up and became much denser and far more variable in the types and species that inhabit such tree and scrub areas. Which counters and far exceeds the loss of those scattered small,clumps of trees and scrub, now gone, as they were left by the early settlers who cleared these lands.

              At a rough guess my estimate in the increase in tree growth and tree cover over those 50 plus years I have been flying power and gliders over western Victoria is that tree and scrubland growth and cover is at a minimum, at least double and arguably a lot more than it was when I first started flying those 50 odd years ago.

              And from the occasional flight into other areas I would believe it is the same story elsewhere in eastern Australia as well.

              And it was all due to rural and country citizens desire to create a better environment with almost no input other than never ending critiscm from the big city latte greens.

              321

              • #
                Willy

                Well said ROM. Have been south of you for about 15 years and watching closely. 3 wind farms, large hectare blue gum plantations, a gas plant and a gas fired power plant came in that time. Btw the wind farms feed the aluminium smelter. Can still remember an old farmer really upset about all the long ago clears and fenced improved pasture, being turned into what we all guessed was blue gum carbon credits instead of food or fibre, as in sheep or beef. Today there is a glut of almost worthless woodchips, from failed Ponzi scheme companies really now the liquidator companies, with harvested gums reshooting 6ft per year. The wildlife boomed in the plantations as well, mostly grey roos, black wallabies, foxes, koalas and birds. Except for the foxes, that’s nice sure. We get a story today about dogs killing a wallaby on a beach near town. Hah, want to see road kill out this way. Sure nothing like Tassie, but roos and warleys moving around roads dusk or dawn, or looking for new homes, after plantations are harvested.

                40

              • #
                Maverick

                Well said

                30

        • #
          Dariusz

          Every since humanity invented an ax deforestation continued. In fact most forests were cut out before 1920 and most of it stopped by 2005 as part global agreements.
          Sicily filly indeed

          41

          • #
            ROM

            Forest clearing is very far from being a modern phenomena, despite the latte greens quite subtly trying to imply in all these hand wringing press releases and statements, the evil and destructive forest use actions of modern man.

            Below; A good short read source for the 6000 plus year long history for mankind’s clearing of Forests going back at least for some 6000 years in Europe.

            Dark ages and dark areas: global deforestation in the deep past

            It is impossible to summarize the sometimes mind-numbing local detail about the nature and history of deforestation in Europe, particularly during the eleventh to thirteenth centuries—“l’aˆ ge des grands de ́ frichements”—that led to so much clearing in the cold deciduous forests
            That is done more than adequately by others.[74]
            Place names indicative of clearing attest to the universal nature of the process, but the documentary evidence of the colonization of German peoples as they expanded east is by far the most impressive.
            From roughly 900 to 1200, organized colonization under lay and ecclesiastical lords, often under generous terms, changed the map of the heart of central Europe, culturally and physically.

            70

            • #
              Mark D.

              Sorry ROM, that is just more old white (probably men) that started messing things up even then.

              You are inadvertently feeding the poor nag.

              30

        • #
          The Backslider

          Talking about deforestation Dumb Donkey, how do you, as a green, justify the “green” solution for Drax power station in the UK burning megatons of wood pellets produced by clear felling vast tracts of forest in the USA?

          70

        • #
          cohenite

          I just love these guesstimates; sequestration saved this, agriculture produces this; all guesses. TOM Quirk has shown that LUC is a negative emitter and when that is combined with a constant or declining AF as Knoor has found it is highly likely that the increase in CO2 is NOT human caused at all.

          So even if you BELIEVE in AGW it isn’t humans causing the problem.

          41

  • #
    Zigmaster

    The greens should be chuffed that a policy that helped to decimate the manufacturing sector reduced emissions,put thousands of the poorest into fuel poverty and have increased unemployment to recent highs has been so effective.A return to Greens policies in a few years time will just about finish our economy entirely. Then Christine Milne will be so happy you won’t get the smile of her face.

    483

    • #
      Murray R Adamthwaite

      “Then Christine Milne will be so happy you won’t get the smile off her face.”
      I was not aware that she was capable of a smile. Every time (and I mean “every”) I see her on TV she shows a scowl on her face, while acerbic venom comes from her mouth. Let me stress, this is an observation, not a wild accusation. I am willing to stand corrected by someone who has seen anything different from her.

      101

      • #
        Andrew

        I once saw the Lemonsucker smile. She was obviously told that it was a turn off for voters. So she scowled during an Abbott666Satan tirade, then turned to the camera remembering the instructions. And gave a hideous grimace.

        31

    • #

      But it makes them feel SO good about themselves … and that’s what it’s all about.

      172

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Alarmists never mention how long these ‘reductions’ last for.
    Not only did they pay $14 billion to achieve 0.004% emissions reduction, the world replenished those reductions in half an hour.
    As long as you restrict it to human-caused emissions, of course. Nature took less than two minutes to replenish the withheld emissions that Australia paid our $14 billion, and suffered for years to make.
    Calculations available upon request.

    495

  • #
    Richard

    How much warming would that avert? It would have been nice if you had converted the reduction into something more relatable. If human CO2 emissions are 36 gigatonnes/year (4.6ppmv) and Australia contributes 1.5% to total human CO2 emissions then Australia’s emissions must be about 0.07ppmv/year. A 1.4% reduction of that is 0.001ppmv/year. That’s rounded off, it’s a little lower. That would save the world from an extra 0.085ppmv added to the total CO2 greenhouse by 2100 assuming it all stays in the atmosphere (it won’t) and save us from a total warming using the IPCC’s own equations (with assumed positive feedbacks included) of (400.085ppmv/400ppmv)Ln*5.35*0.8 = 0.001C. And that’s being generous because that 0.85ppmv would be added to the greenhouse above 400ppmv which would cause less warming because of CO2′s logarithmic nature. So we have a global warming redution of less than 0.001C by 2100. Money obviously well-spent.

    214

    • #
      Richard

      By the way that 8 gigatonnes of carbon from humans cited at the end of the article is a little old. In 2013 it was almost 10 gigatonnes which translates roughly to 36 gigatonnes of CO2.

      50

    • #
      C.J.Richards

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s a start and if we were to do the same every year then that could be .044 degrees of warming avoided by 2100, for $ 609 billion and if the whole planet were to do the same every year, as Australians are 1.5% of human emissions, that could be 2.95 degrees avoided by 2100. Bingo ! We can do this ;-)

      22

      • #
        Richard

        C.J.

        The calculation above is based on the IPCC’s estimates for climate sensitivity (which is the warming we can expect from CO2 including any feedbacks). So I suppose it all depends on whether he IPCC’s estimates for climate sensitivity are correct and there is strong evidence to suggest they may be overestimating climate sensitivity. Just one piece of evidence is the non-appearance of the tropospheric hotspot which is a fingerprint of water vapour positive feedback which is supposed to amplify CO2’s warming. If there is no water vapour feedback then there is no significant warming. You can read about this in Jo’s Handbook. If CO2 really were something we should be concerned with then another question you should ask yourself is: why have surface global temperatures been flat for over a decade now (which is something James Hansen has even admitted) despite the fact that CO2 continues to increase at a rate of 2ppmv/year? Clearly whatever warming effect CO2 does have is being completely overwhelmed by nature. Why was this not predicted by the IPCC’s models and what do they consider to be the confounding variables, I wonder? Rather than spending billions to reduce harmless plant food from the atmosphere that money could be spent on more important things. One could even make the argument that increasing CO2 is a good thing because it provides vital nutrition to green-plants and microorganisms, which in turn provides more food for us.

        60

      • #
        ROM

        C.J.Richards @ # 5.2.

        I had a long screed written out in reply to your suggested outcomes if we reduced CO2.

        But I will ask this question first.

        What will be the global temperatures in 2020 and 2030 and 2040 and 2050.?

        If anybody can unreservedly answer that question there might have some grounds for your concern because it will suggest that they are remarkably clairvoyant and can accurately predict the future of the climate many decades ahead.

        So far they can’t even accurately predict the phase and when, if or how strong the single biggest influence on global temperatures, the ENSO/ El Nino / La Nina will be more than a few weeks ahead of the start of the event as we see in this latest El Nino prediction bust when we supposedly were looking at a Super El Nino which has just refused to appear on stage as per it’s instructions from the climate scientists .
        .
        Could you or anybody else have predicted today’s temperatures and today’s world and today’s technology and today’s politics and economics back in the early 20th century.?
        Or even by the mid 20th century in the 1950′s when I was already well into my teens years and could watch the incredible and almost completely unpredicted future unfold during my life time.

        The Climate models and modellers in fact CANNOT accurately replicate the past century’s climate even though they have ALL the data right plus the actual written down experiences tom draw from right there to feed into their climate models.

        And the above is not in any way meant as a put down to you personally.
        It is asked metaphorically as a indication of how far removed from reality such claims on the future CO2 levels and the claimed future temperatures are really removed from reality by the global warmers belief in their catastrophic ideology.

        50

        • #
          C.J.Richards

          None taken. Just take care what numbers to throw at Greenies and how much benefit of doubt to give IPCCs assumptions, because they will extrapolate mercilessly and with no thought to error, probability or significance

          50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The headlines hitting the press this week are saying we reduced our emissions by 1.4%. The Greens are excited, but neither the journalists or the Greens have looked at the numbers.

    Well, there’s the problem right there. The numbers don’t count with the green types in the first place. All polluting emissions must stop and that’s that. So it doesn’t matter that the cost of the next increment of benefit is all out of line with reality. The cause must be served. “Period,” as our fearless leader in chief has said repeatedly. “Period. Period. Period.”

    Oh! It’s the first increment of benefit that’s out of line you say? Well, may I remind you of fearless leader in chief? The cause must be served. Period.

    They’ve never even heard about the concept of marginal cost vs marginal revenue — excuse me — benefit. So how can they understand it? :-(

    240

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Besides which, they have a different motive than CO2 reduction in mind as we all know.

      260

    • #
      C.J.Richards

      “Well, there’s the problem right there. The numbers don’t count with the green types in the first place. ”

      Greens don’t count, so no one takes any notice of them.

      71

      • #
        Bob Malloy

        @ C.J.Richards

        Greens don’t count, so no one takes any notice of them

        To take no notice of greens, would be as foolish as ignoring a white ant infestation in your home. Eventually they will destroy your living standards, life style and have you living on handouts that they will control. Know your enemy and act quickly to counteract any destructive action they propose.

        110

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Amen to that!

          50

        • #
          C.J.Richards

          You have a point Roy. I should have said no notice of their numbers. You peerfectly correct though, they use impressive numbers to appeal to the emotive. Showing up their numbers is a good way to expose their emotive argument.

          20

      • #
        Annie

        I’d like to think so but unfortunately they are inveigling their way into every aspect of our lives and we need to be aware of that. The media should ignore them if they go by representation but their ABC plague us with frequent interviews and reports. We rarely bother with their ABC now as a result.

        20

  • #

    [...] JoNova provides the wonderful outcome for spending $14 billion to reduce “carbon pollution” [...]

    51

  • #
    sillyfilly

    From the DOE:

    “Summary of annual emissions
    Annual emissions for 2013-14 are estimated to be 542.6 Mt CO2-e3. This represents a 1.4% decline in emissions when compared with the previous year. Annual emissions for 2003-04 to 2011-12, and preliminary estimates for 2012-13 and 2013-14, are presented in Figure 4. Over 2013-14, there was a decline in emissions from electricity (section 2.1), reflecting lower electricity demand
    and changes in the generation mix”

    Figure 4 is missing from Jo’s analysis, but then of course, I wouldn’t insinuate any deliberate errors of omission. Maybe it was accidental?

    540

    • #

      The real error of omission that matters (which you don’t seem to care about) is that the Dept of Environment omitted the error bars on Fig 4 and gives no indication of how much those dots will move with adjustments in years to come. After all, if they’d graphed fig 4 with the original figures they’d announced (or past adjustments) or error bars it would look very different wouldn’t it? Those numbers keep changing. Isn’t it deceptive to graph them as if they have some meaning?

      I’m sure you’ll want to write and tell them…

      424

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Good excuse, but no cigar! The graph validates the drop rather than your argument!

        449

        • #

          You are struggling tonight aren’t you silly?

          The graph doesn’t “validate” the drop. It unscientifically fakes out that the drop is real and accurate.
          It validates my argument — the DoE are not trying too hard to give Australians the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

          That drop could vanish overnight with the next quarterly adjustment.

          523

        • #
          NoFixedAddress

          @sillyfilly

          Do you understand the concept of meaningful numbers?

          One of the greatest frauds that I have observed is the concentration on anomalies.

          111

        • #
          Ross

          Sillyfilly

          ” …and preliminary estimates for 2012-13 and 2013-14, are presented in Figure 4. ” From the summary.

          If the figures for 2012-2013 are still preliminary estimates then I would not read anything into the 2013-2014 preliminary estimates.

          271

        • #
          James Bradley

          SF,

          Jo has a valid proposal for you.

          Unless you’re afraid of the answer.

          Write the DoE and ask about the discrepancy then request an explanation.

          Post your request here when submitted and then post the answer from the DoE when received.

          The fact that you are here indicates already that you accept that this is a transparent and open forum.

          Time to walk the walk.

          Yours,

          James Bradley

          312

        • #
          Debbie

          SF.
          Graphing estimates in trends is merely a useful tool not a validation.
          Anyone who uses them knows that they will most likely be adjusted when it’s time to update them with the real data.
          Your blind acceptance of the ‘reason/excuse’ for the estimated drop in emmissions speaks volumes.
          It is just as likely that the estimated drop is from a plethora of other variables eg…less industry, fewer bushfires, milder weather, drop in mining production, northern NSW/southern QLD drought etc etc etc etc.
          Attributing to single causes is a nonsense.

          201

          • #

            Hello Debbie – sillyfilly says “no cigar”. Would you or Jo use an expression like that?
            Maybe HE cross dresses and is a male trollop. He certainly certainly does not understand statistics but that has never worried green socialists.

            41

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      One of your few approvals is a mistake, so don’t think you have converted anyone. Just my clumsiness.

      70

  • #
    Tim

    The Carbon Tax was just a means to an end. Another part of the big spend. An Incoming government would then need to make unpopular decisions to get us back into the black.

    The new government’s unpopular, but necessary decisions are exactly what the big spenders have planned on.

    They are then in a position to capitalise on public disquiet by winning an election by default.

    130

    • #
      handjive

      The new government’s unpopular, but necessary decisions are exactly what the big spenders have planned on.”
      ~ ~ ~
      For what it’s worth, Tim, $200M gifted to the UN-IPCC to stop the climate changing cost Abbott this vote.

      Not sure how that $200M will get us ‘back in the black.’

      Some history:

      “The last dark deed of the Howard Government was the passage of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in October 2007.

      That act is the auditing basis of the carbon tax.

      Mr Howard’s plan was to get the auditing system bedded down, then start taxing.

      Labor’s carbon tax would be a couple of years behind schedule if Mr Howard had not laid the bureaucratic foundations for it.

      That is the part of the Howard legacy that many of us have toiled mightily to avoid.

      That legacy is now with us, and we stare into the abyss of a continually shrinking economy.

      The list of carbon tax plotters is a lot longer than Howard, Rudd and Gillard.”

      David Archibald, anti-carbon tax rally in Sydney on July 1, 2012.

      111

      • #

        And a couple of other aspects of the Howard government’s legacy:

        - bans on firearms … for non-criminals anyway!
        - ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, meaning that at any time one of our soldiers has to pull the trigger they have to worry that some leftist will get their mates at the ICC to treat it as a ‘war crime’;
        - record spending and taxes. No, don’t be conned by the ‘balancing the budget’ myth. The Howard government was lucky that it stumbled into the dotcom boom and a mining boom, both of which provided the increased revenue that balanced the budget;
        - and let’s not forget the contribution from record immigration numbers, which the Howard government used to bring new money and consumers into the country to create the illusion of prosperity. It fueled the real estate boom and kept everyone drunk on the whoopee of capital gains for just one more electoral cycle. But now we are in every respect paying the price for that unsustainable, non-selective immigration program;
        - a great big new tax – the GST – which, you will note, every single government is talking about increasing. And weren’t the states supposed to abolish stamp duty and payroll tax in exchange for GST revenue?
        - failure to purge the Left from the state owned media;
        - failure to reform the national curriculum so that children are not being brainwashed by the Left about global warming and myths concerning our early history;
        - failure to undo the Left’s policy of allowing welfare as a lifestyle choice, from which has emerged a growing underbelly of angry, marginalised people for whom anti-social, offensive and often violent behaviour are the norm;
        - failure to deal with Indigenous issues such as land tenure, remote communities, health and welfare;

        … and I’m spent!

        I’m sure there are many more. Over to you …

        133

        • #
          Dariusz

          He was the best pm in recent history, but sadly I agree with your points. Add an incredible expansion of public sector to your list. Now we have 2mly of these people (20% of work force!) that never produce anything, not even tax as we already paid for them. As usual gov. Gets the best deal. Gets tax on tax and boast creating new jobs.
          Under labor we had truly rivers of gold and they still could not balance their books. Now banana republic awaits.

          61

        • #
          Andrew

          The Howard government was lucky that it stumbled into the dotcom boom and a mining boom, both of which provided the increased revenue that balanced the budget

          That’s rubbish. The Dotcom boom contributed a negligible amount in AUS. And followed by a 2 year global recession. They had no mining boom to help balance the Budget – 90% of the Howard term saw deeply depressed commodity prices. Only in the last month’s did prices tick up to around the LOWEST level ever seen during the Gillard debacle. Look at the RBA commodity chart in their website.

          That’s an urban legend started by Wayne Goose. It’s a total fabrication. The Howard term actually battled horrendous commodity prices and 3 global or regional recessions.

          30

      • #
        Mike of NQ

        My memory may fail me but I’m sure the move by Howard was a political move ONLY. There was a lot of green and Al Gore type hysteria at this time and Howard basically needed to hedge his bets to remain in the game. The clincher for Howard was that he would not act until China and US acted in a substantial way.

        140

        • #
          Cookster

          Mike is 100% correct. Howard lost office in 2007 at the height of global warming alarmism after the release of Al Gore’s science fiction movie. It was political suicide at that point in time to campaign without some form of CO2 abatement policy. Howard himself has admitted that himself recently. Thankfully times have changed recently but there is a long way to go.

          30

    • #

      The reason they are unpopular is that they are incompetent amateurs. Their budget put the boot into the people who voted for them, but still they waste billions on things that don’t matter a damn to ordinary people. Those same voters who are getting a kick in the guts see billions being wasted on Indigenous programs that for three decades have failed to deliver lasting benefits; renewable energy programs that at best are a complete waste of money, or, often, involve serial offenders who deliberately target government handouts and then draw the money off for ‘administrative expenses’ before phoenixing themselves and targeting another government program; the so-called arts, nationalised sport; the UN (who gives a stuff about the Security Council); non-selective immigration (look up the figures on how much we pay to provide one-on-one interpreters to people in education courses who cannot speak English. We pay this because our mates at the AHRC say it is a ‘human right’) … Look, the list is endless and it has been done to death, so I’m not going to go on. And, quite frankly, I couldn’t be bothered with it. Leftist governments and incompetent, cowardly conservative governments have ruined our country. We don’t have the means to put a stop to it, let alone undo the harm they have done.

      172

      • #
        Dariusz

        Contrary to the popular believe Abbott is not a right winger. He moved away from true conservative values and alienated the right with the left hate increased as they smell the rat. There is enough of leftist In this country and I don,t liberals to pretend it too.

        20

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    And the skeleton of our economic activity is still being buried by RET.

    140

  • #
    PeterS

    If this happened under any other enterprise investment of financial scheme, the organizers would by now be behind bars along with the likes of of Bernard Madoff, one of the greatest financial fraudsters of history. So, what’s stopping the police fraud squad from arresting those involved, including a number of politicians on all sides of politics? Using tax payers money to commit fraud, which is what the AGW scam is allegedly all about, is one of the most serious crimes known to man.

    40

  • #
    • #

      Was the electrical part no more than just the snowy hydro power kicking in again at the same time as a whole lot of pumpimg and trucking of water was winding down?

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    If you want to see the significance, it is important to have 0 on the Y axis for total emissions. The entire range of emissions over 10 years is only 5%. In the Green/Labor period, only 2 1/2%. Variations in agriculture, manufacturing, mining, concrete manufacture, aluminium refining and naturally increasing energy efficiencies mean this is just noise.

    The Carbon Tax was just that, a tax. The RET is insane, funding non viable inadequate and inconvenient energy without changing the essential base load at all and pushing up electricity prices for no reason.

    Global Warming is just politics, not science. Climate Change is meaningless waffle. Unfortunately there is hardly a Labor member of the Australian parliaments who does not owe his seat to Green preferences, so 14% of the population hand power to a blatantly Communist group who want to wreck the Australian economy and destroy Israel. An extraordinary number of Greens including Deputy Leader Adam Bandt and Lee Rhiannon are lifelong communists waving the caring flag. As if. The RET must go too. Like the windmills, it is a blot on the landscape and a curse on our economy.

    131

    • #
      TdeF

      If we included biomass like Sweden, the end of the drought and the massive greening of Australia would dwarf these numbers with CO2 captured by Australia. As a country we would not only show a high rate of CO2 per capita, we would also show a massive rate of CO2 capture per person in the last few years and the world would owe us Carbon Credits, but who wants to know about total CO2? It is all anti Western democracies and the Chinese are never criticized, even praised for generating half the world’s CO2. When did the Greens last criticize China whose growth in CO2 per year exceeds our entire output? Wealth redistribution and destruction of Western democracies is the aim. There is no global warming.

      130

  • #
    C.J.Richards

    Reduced emissions by 0.004% ? Isn’t that 40ppm ?
    Has anyone worked out yet how many degrees of warming that has avoided, using the IPCC’s best estimate of climate sensitivity, for $14 Billion ?

    40

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      No, it isn’t . The actual reduction in temperature is so small that even in thousandths of a degree it is still zero.
      (Thousandths of degrees are the favourite choice of various warmists, trying to make it appear that something is happening )

      70

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes and the total increase in world temperature anyway was nothing. Possibly even that achievement of zero growth in temperature over 18 years required fiddling Australia’s figures or the world would have shown cooling. So the saving is closer to 40ppm of nothing at all. How can people arrive at a computed saving is there is no effect anyway? It is like the purported acidification of the oceans which remain akali. A nonsense statement.

        80

    • #

      CJ – No, we emitted 17Mt less out of a global-all-sources-total of 416Gt emitted last year from all over the planet.

      The temperature reduction is another different calculation, but even assuming the IPCC is right about climate sensitivity, the effect is too small to even bother calculating. IF (and it’s a big if) — if humans are entirely responsible for the 2ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 each year, then we’ve made that 2ppm rise smaller for two years running by making human total emissions 17Mt smaller than the 10Gt total (0.17% smaller for 2 years). As far as the subsequent temperature rise averted by global atmospheric rise of 3.9932ppm instead of the expected rise of 4ppm — my calculator is running out of zeroes.

      81

    • #
      C.J.Richards

      and I see Richard has already had a go up at #5, projecting out to less than .001 deg C. by end of the century.

      10

  • #
    Ted

    It matters not one whit when you realise that just one volcano in 2010 in Iceland (Eyjafjnallajokull) poured out more CO2 in every 4 days of its eruption,
    than the total that every country on earth had managed to reduce its output by. That global CO2 inexorably rose and not one iota of extra heat in the troposphere. But add that A$13.8 billion Carbon Tax on Australians to the A$27 billion that we paid in interest to overseas investors during that two years. How many hospitals, schools, high speed rail and light rail infrastructures could have been built for that money? It makes me want to puke.

    131

    • #
      TdeF

      Ted, exactly. Now volcanoes have been belching CO2 forever. Why isn’t the CO2 level higher than barely above that required to sustain life? It is self evident that aerial CO2 is absorbed continually and rapidly into the ocean and the amount in the air is determined by equilibrium, as with all gas in water. The primitive idea that the atmosphere is a bucket to be filled is absurd. It is in continual exchange with the massive oceans and the amount in the air determined entirely by water temperature. That’s it. Even the IPCC agree, but argue that the exchange is very slow, 80 years and the massive CO2 in the deep ocean is not involved at all. To paraphrase the late Mandy Rice Davies, they would say that, wouldn’t they.

      101

      • #
        TdeF

        This gaseous exchange works both ways. All sealife need to breathe oxygen and output CO2. Without rapid exchange both ways, they die. In fact if the water is very still, the exchange is poor and the water stagnates and the fish do die in anaerobic ponds like fishtanks. The role of storms and especially waves in accelerating gaseous exchange has been studied for fifty years, but you hear nothing. Fascinating stuff, the exchange in waves and droplets massively increasing the surface area.. Studying the atmosphere alone and ignoring the gas in the world’s oceans, storms, waves and currents is just idiotic. We are not getting the full story from the IPCC, just the Armageddon one. It always ends in a demand for cash.

        71

        • #
          TdeF

          The droplets work like the alveoli in your lungs, massively increasing surface area. Your lungs for example have 40 square metres of wet membrane so that you can increase the CO2 in the incoming air from 0.04% to 24% and 100% humidity, which is why your breath is visible in the cold. Your lungs have a massive 20x your external body surface area.

          Tiny droplets of water created by even light wind and waves on water do the same thing. So everyone knows from their own experience that CO2 gaseous exchange can be very fast, a huge amount of CO2 in the time of a single breath. Bubbles and water are essential. Try turning off the bubbling air pump in the fish tank. No don’t.

          My point is that the rate of exchange of CO2 in the windy, moving real world is far higher than in a laboratory, thanks to droplets.

          91

          • #
            TdeF

            You could call the oceans the lungs of the world. It is where much of the world’s gas is stored. There is as much air in the oceans..

            Gases in solution as a %.

            However check CO2 which is massively higher in the oceans. Consider also that the total volume of the atmosphere is comparable to that of the oceans, so you can directly compare the absolute amount. Most of the world’s CO2 is in the oceans.

            71

            • #
              pattoh

              So then the solubility product of CO2 has risen with the global T pause/ decline ?

              20

              • #
                TdeF

                I doubt the solubility (product) is a chemical constant changes at all with the pause, especially if nothing else is changing. It is unclear what Warmists mean by Global Temperature, because humans and the land only feel air temperature, not ocean temperature. Land temperature is something else again. In all these discussions, it is not clear what is meant by Global Temperature. Of course you can treat the earth’s surface as a radiator and get the temperature from the mean of the spectrum of reflected light, which is a mixture of all these things. Individual earth, sea, air temperatures can vary wildly over even short distances. It is interesting that some warmists are anxious to talk about the huge oceans at last, as they are the only things warming, which is why we look to the outgassing of CO2 as an effect, not a cause.

                81

      • #

        And if you’re going to lose sleep over ‘ocean acidification’ read this on WUWT. Also, maybe a year ago there was an excellent comment from a reader of this blog about the fact that sea water is alkaline and, if CO2 were a concern, it would just slightly lower the alkalinity of sea water. Acidity is not the issue. If it were, you would have to ask how reefs and shellfish have survived to this day, despite extended periods in history when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were much higher. But, never let the facts stand in the way of a good scare.

        91

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Carbonic acid is a weak acid and so affects pH only slightly. The conversion of CO2 into it is largely a figment of imagination on the part of greenies, who want the Earth to appear in danger so they “can save it”. In practice such conversion is rare below pH levels well above those in sea water. (carbonate neutralisation proceeds rapidly at pH 11 e.g. dilute caustic soda).

          The change in pH of 0.03 units shown as ‘a danger signal’ should be compared with the natural variation in sea water of around 0.5 units.

          The only time where there MIGHT have been ocean acidification was the Permian extinction** when there was huge volcanic activity in Siberia, which MAY have released large quantities of SO2, which is a much stronger acid.

          **the first extinction as modern ideas tend to see 3 events, with the first the most severe for marine life.

          52

    • #
      Dariusz

      And this only one volcano. 80% of them are under water (at plate tectonic spreading ridges) belching even more that we don!to know about it

      70

    • #
      Robert O

      Ted, you are right trying to solve a problem that, for practical purposes, doesn’t exist except in the minds of the pundits at a very large cost to the nation. The seas in economic zone would sequester more CO2 than all the green schemes put together in the world: underground storage in mine shafts, plus the green energy concepts etc.

      But a hidden cost for us is what happened to Rudd’s 130 odd delegates that went to Copenhagen: are they still in the public service processing funding applications for green projects, have they left, or are the still advising the government, albeit poorly, in one way or another? Who advised PM Rudd that global warming was a major problem facing mankind? Are they being sent to Giles (a very remote location near the Simpson desert) for re-education?

      50

  • #
    handjive

    Returning to the science …

    JULIA Gillard has invoked a doomsday-like scenario of metre-high sea level rises and a 2000km southward shift of Australia’s climactic zones
    as she returns to the scientific debate on climate change.
    ” (The Australian)
    ~ ~ ~
    Here we have another metric on which to judge the success of a carbon(sic) constrained economy.

    Climate Doomsday. Possibly the ONLY reason to take any action on carbon(sic).
    . . .
    SBS Factbox: Carbon(sic) taxes around the world -
    Finland introduced the world’s first carbon(sic) tax in 1990 (25 years of tax)

    Here is a quick attempt to collate the scientific success of the carbon(sic) tax:

    1. Positive observations

    ~ A ‘pause’ or hiatus of 18+ years in global mean temperatures over land & ocean (graph:NCDC/NESIS/NOAA)

    ~ Total economic losses from disasters down 16% due to benign natural catastrophes year. Stats in Swiss re sigma report.

    ~ Our guide to the actions that have done the most to slow global warming (the Economist)

    ~ Government measures ‘may have slowed down global warming’:
    Energy minister claims policies are playing a role in curbing rising temperatures (DailyMailUK)

    2. Negative observations

    ~ NOAA CO2 Expert: Underlying CO2 Will Hit 400ppm (reportingclimatescience.com)

    ~ NASA: We rounded up a few scientists here at NASA and asked them what passing 400 ppm means to them.

    ~ 2012 Hottest Year Ever
    ~ 2013 Hottest Year Ever (bonus Angry Summer – TheAge)
    ~ 2014 Hottest Year Ever
    . . .
    Let’s see a graph with those facts.

    31

  • #
    Binny

    A lot of very careful calculations have gone into these graphs. But they’re not scientific or mathematical calculations, they’re political. The object being to pin point the maximum amount of spin that can be applied to the figures, without being caught in a provable fraud.

    61

  • #

    Tdef
    It is so simple you have to be at least partly correct. If those people who are predicting rapid cooling to come soon (Like David Evans) are also correct then we should see CO2 take a dive.
    The most interesting part of this would be guessing the new name for 350.org.

    91

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes, but cooling masses oceans is far slower than cooling the air. Mass is the reason.
      For all materials, temperature change is energy in and mass.

      Consider the average depth of the ocean at 3.4km. This is comparable to the bulk of the atmosphere, certainly at 5km. What is the difference in weight? The air weighs 1 atmosphere in pressure, equivalent to only 10 metres of water, so the whole atmosphere only weighs as much as the top 10 metres of water, meaning the ocean is 340x as massive and so takes 340x as long to change temperature.

      In principle air is a poor conductor of heat, but again the water helps with gaseous H2O in humidity and clouds and rain and snow and fog. The only real source of heating for the planet is the sun, so with all the trillions spent, who would suspect that solar activity is responsible for every change. You would expect CO2 changes to lag slow ocean temperature changes, so we expect CO2 to slowly taper and stop. Or it could be your taxes at work.

      110

      • #
        TdeF

        Sorry, cooling massive oceans.

        10

      • #

        Yes but the steep part of the exponential cooling curve is at the beginning. Plus the surface for Henry’s law to act on would cool faster. It is just that guessing game that would drag on beyond our lifetimes.
        If you allow for the different cooling rates of the metal in a sauce pan and the internal and external convection changes distorting the curve shape then this guy got a very good fit.
        http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/100775/is-cooling-really-exponential

        30

        • #
          TdeF

          Agreed, but the point of exponential curves is that the rate of change of slope is constant. It is always straight on a log graph. So if you zoom in endlessly on an exponential curve, it is still an exponential. However when the perturbation is small, you hardly notice.

          In all this, we are really dealing with tiny variations in temperature, so small that they are often lost in the noise. If there was not an IPCC driving this, there would be no concern at all. There is no rapid Global Warming, at most a slight increase in ocean surface temperature. So the only variation which is really noticeable is the 50% growth in total CO2, amplified x 50 as I argue by the massive reserves in the deep ocean. Changing ocean temperatures takes a long time.

          70

          • #

            In a previous thread we talked about the Nyos underwater CO2 lake effect depth (point of compression to heavier liquid). I wonder if the draw down would get some amplification due to a thermal change in this depth reducing the amount of CO2 heading up from below.

            30

            • #

              The above could work well with these charts.
              http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/

              40

              • #
                TdeF

                Interesting graph with a major 20% jump at WWII. Equally significant is that the CO2 levels quickly returned to the old level by 1950. That confirms the CO2 was absorbed in at most 10 years, not the 160 of the IPCC (2 half lives say). It indicates an effective half life for excess CO2 in the atmosphere at closer to 5 years, although the C14 bomb graph indicates 14.

                50

              • #
                el gordo

                Note that the CO2 began to rise in the 1920s and 1930s, the warming period between the wars, and had nothing whatsoever to do with WW2.

                TdeF made some interesting observations on the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere, clear evidence that the warmists are taking through their hats.

                30

              • #

                While thinking about that “1940s blip” in the wet chemical CO2 chart ask yourself what the Eugenesist Svante August Arrhenius used to measure CO2 during the world wide 1896 heatwaves.

                10

              • #

                While thinking about that “1940s blip” in the wet chemical CO2 chart ask yourself what the Eugenesist Svante August Arrhenius used to measure CO2 during the world wide 1896 heatwaves.

                10

              • #

                eugenicist.
                As explained below less than 28 years of rapid cooling before they start jumping for joy.

                10

            • #
              TdeF

              There would be a point at which all CO2 becomes liquid and yes, the water gets colder as you get deeper and the solubility increases with pressure, so CO2 would head to the bottom or an area of uniform mixing. The question is whether dissolved CO2 from the bottom would follow the same elevator in reverse as you explained can be forced. In the huge oceans, a perturbation in currents, temperature, sea floor shape, volcanic activity, thermal vents and more might provide the catalyst for CO2 upwelling as noted as common by a geologist in another post where he explores for such hydrocarbon plumes. Take the cap from lemonade or champagne and the bubbles come from irregularities on the bottom.

              51

        • #
          TdeF

          Sliggy, the peculiar shape of exponential graphs is why people talking equilibrium use half lives. A half live is the time taken to halve. My examination the C14 collapse after the cessation of bomb tests shows a half life for CO2 in the atmosphere to be 14 years. It is indisputable. Yes, a return to equilibrium levels shows a rapid drop at the start. Three half lives and you only have 1/8th left, so 1/2 of the CO2 from 2000 is gone, 3/4 from 1986, 7/8ths of the CO2 from 1974 is gone. 15/16ths of that from 1960. etc.

          40

          • #
            TdeF

            Sorry, Siliggy.

            00

          • #

            “the peculiar shape of exponential graphs is why people talking equilibrium use half lives.”
            Not all of us Tdef.
            I prefer to use time constants (as most electronics people do).
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_constant
            Your method works. It is just a different way of doing things that we find a bit cumbersome.

            20

          • #

            TdeF You can use this chart for a quick very rough appoximation.
            The points where the lines cross is your half life. It comes out conveniently close to 7 small units. So this is your 14 years at 2 years per small unit. From this you can quickly see that a 100 percent change is close enough to 100 years. You can also see that at 6 years about 25 percent is gone and at 24 years about 75 percent is gone.
            http://www.earth2.net/parts/?route=course/90904008/question/
            So 400PPM to 350 in as little at 6 years if the cooling rate matches the human rate but less if it exceeds it.

            10

            • #

              Ooops 28 years for 75 Percent.

              00

            • #
              TdeF

              Yes, the inverse of k in the expression e-kt, so e-1 when t=1/k. Approx 1/2.7 of the original or 37% instead of 50% for a 1/2 half life. This can be handy for quick calculation in circular motion and phase in electromagnetics or electronics as you say. The idea is the same though, a fixed time for a fixed proportional loss because the curve does not change shape. It is however a rapid drop or a rapid climb either way.

              00

              • #
                TdeF

                Personally I prefer logarithms where any exponential behavior is a straight line. C14 decay in the bomb tests shows as dead straight line, so the slope give the exact half life. This also tells you there is only one large sink, not many as the graph is not compound. The IPCC conveniently ignores this simple radiation physics. I have always challenged the idea that the CO2 increase is man made and radio carbon dating proves absolutely and without argument, the extra CO2 is not man made.

                20

              • #

                “C14 decay in the bomb tests shows as dead straight line, so the slope give the exact half life. This also tells you there is only one large sink, not many as the graph is not compound.”
                A few more things that agree with the theory.
                1)The rising slope of annual CO2 variation has more distortion than the falling slope. Each year it is a near straight line. This is what you would expect from the annual falling Southern ocean temperature.
                http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
                2)The phase of this signal is a better synchronised with the Southern ocean temperature and Antarctic sea ice extent than with Northern hemisphere vegetation.
                3)The annual rate of fall is close to 1.5PPM/month. This is even steeper than the steep part of our exponential curve!

                00

  • #
    cheshirered

    Don’t suppose you’re on the Greens Christmas card list this year, Jo.

    Let’s face facts here; they’re all over the place – emissions, temps, sensitivity, causation, the Pause, data validation, everything.

    ‘CO2 emissions reduction policy’ is now officially a complete and utter shambles, and a global bargain at only several hundred billion a year…

    60

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    The blind leading the deaf, dumb and stupid basically. Its religion by any other name. In the same way as you can interpret anything you like from your chosen book of spiritual nonsense, you can do the same with anything associated with AGW. 14b peed up against the wall for a result that amazingly fantastic or complete pointlessness depending on your voting preferences. I despair……

    70

    • #
      Dariusz

      Sadly this is not new. What really amazes me is that the human history shows although non-linear progress, progress nevertheless. However, this will be stopped again as democracy is not the best system for progress as it panders to the lowest denominator. But after living under communism is see no alternative.
      My despair echoes yours.

      40

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    The issue is that whether “emissions” are up, down or sideways, it makes no difference to the temperature or the weather.
    In the absence of any evidence whatsoever that CO2 has any effect, and plenty of evidence that it does not, the discussion about increasing or decreasing “emissions” is just ludicrous nonsense.
    This is exactly the arena in which the Fascist Greens like to play. Avoid the real questions of “Is global warming happen, and if so how much?”. And “Specifically, which climate has changed from one Koppen Geiger classification to another in the past few decades? In the past century?” “How does this relate to the essentially constant values of sea surface temperature, ocean pH, or the CET?” “If an imaginary ‘global warming’ causes weird weather, why is the incidence of tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, actually less frequent that in earlier times?”
    The uniformed gleefully swallow the rubbish about higher or lower “emissions”.

    50

  • #

    It is impossible to believe that this twaddle is still being offered as fact the hoi poloi. If it is still being belived by them, then it is easy to see how $14b can be whipped out from under their noses.

    Prime Minister John Key and Climate Change Minister Tim Groser are, deep down, climate change sceptics, Massey University’s Professor Ralph Sims believes.

    How else, he asks, could they make the decisions they do when 97 per cent of scientists warn the world their children and grandchildren live in will be one of regular superstorms, out-of-control forest fires and coastal cities lost to the seas?

    “Stone the crows and starve the blimmin’ lizards!” as I believe you Ozzies say.

    The stupidity – it hurts.

    71

    • #
      TdeF

      That a Professor would repeat “the 97% of scientists” lie is worrying.

      I can see his vested interests, but what is Professor Ralph Sim’s actual expertise in meteorology or anything else? The internet is all about him being a Professor of Renewable Energy and on the IPCC and famous, but what is his actual undergraduate history? Australian of the Year, famous Professor Tim Flannery graduated in English and paleoentology with no undergraduate science at all. That does not make him a meteorologist or physical scientist.

      51

      • #
        TdeF

        The proportion of atmospheric scientists and meteorologists must be tiny, at most 2-5% of the total science population just counting those practicing in scientific fields and discounting medical doctors and engineers with substantial scientific training and those millions with science degrees and training but not practicing. The figure of 97% of all scientists is just absurd and reflects very badly on the speaker. John Kerry might get away with it, but not a Science Professor surely?

        61

        • #
          Len

          The medical “doctors’ aren’t actually Doctors. The more accurate description is medical practitioners. That is what their boards are called. So bad luck “Dr” Carl.

          41

          • #
            TdeF

            Yes, Dr Carl has never been a practicing doctor nor PhD. At best he is a good and qualified electronic instrument maker who worked in a medical field and completed medical and science degrees. To entertain and educate children and adults is good work and a rare talent for communication. To enter the Global Warming debate as an authority on climate or even the weather is not.

            60

      • #

        That a Professor would repeat “the 97% of scientists” lie is worrying.

        My thoughts exactly, TdeF. In fact it worries me that a Professor would allow his name to be linked to such (IMHO) garbage.

        Although he is noted in some reports as a Professor of Renewable Energy & Technology, in others he is noted as a “Climate Scientist”. Cripes!

        BTW, very interesting comments of yours above, Ta.

        51

      • #

        Yes. What is a climate scientist exactly? I know they model
        and hind-cast and fore-cast, but what is their expertise
        exactly with regard to modelling the compluh-cated physics
        and chemistry dynamic inter-activity, sun, moon, stars,
        coriolis effect, cosmic rays, atmosphere, oceans, land-mass,
        green-house feedbacks, volcanoes, clouds, albido and …?

        81

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Same thoughts here Beth, one explanation I conjured up was pro-CAGW scientists and claimed authorities on this marvelous theory were avid fans of the ‘House (TV series)’ where the chief medical Diagnostician, Greg House, is an almost impossibly intelligent Doctor with amazing skills in all areas of medicine, his bedside manner leaves a lot to be desired and falls in beautifully with the reality of ‘Warmist experts’ being claimed know-it-all’s with flawed personalities.

          A bit colorful maybe but hey a ludicrous solution for a ludicrous situation could suffice?

          40

    • #
      Lord Jim

      Prime Minister John Key and Climate Change Minister Tim Groser are, deep down, climate change sceptics, Massey University’s Professor Ralph Sims believes.

      How else, he asks, could they make the decisions they do when 97 per cent of scientists warn the world…

      “Prof Ralph E H Sims

      Coordinating Lead Author

      Working Group III – Chapter 8 – ‘Transport’

      Affiliation: Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand

      Position: Professor of Sustainable Energy. Director, Centre for Energy Research

      Qualifications: BSc (Ag Hons), MSc (Ag Eng), C Eng, FIPENZ, FIAgrE, CRSNZ

      Ralph Sims began his career in Sustainable Energy at Massey University, New Zealand in 1971 making and testing biodiesel from animal fats.”

      20

  • #
    pat

    28 Dec: Guardian: Oliver Milman: Fall in greenhouse emissions due to economy not carbon tax, Coalition says
    Mathias Cormann says below-trend growth was responsible for the 1.4% drop in emissions during the second year of carbon pricing
    Cormann stressed that the government’s alternative climate policy, its Direct Action plan, would achieve Australia’s minimum goal of a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020, despite analysis by the Climate Change Authority, the UN and independent observers suggesting otherwise…
    The Coalition has maintained, however, that the carbon price placed a huge cost upon the economy and household power bills and that a range of factors, such as falling electricity demand and energy efficiency programs, have helped push down emissions.
    Separating the impact of the carbon price can be difficult due to the various factors influencing Australia’s emissions. An Australian National University study from earlier this year found that 17 million tonnes of carbon dioxide was removed from Australia’s energy sector as a result of the policy.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/28/fall-in-greenhouse-emissions-due-to-economy-not-carbon-tax-coalition-says

    31

  • #
    pat

    the claims and counter-claims re domestic CO2 emission reductions/increases are meaningless really – but the cost of pretending to do so isn’t, whichever party is in power, here or elsewhere.

    27 Dec: Columbus-Dispatch: AP: Dina Cappiello: U.S. exporting carbon despite pledges to reduce greenhouse gases
    The United States is sending more dirty fuels overseas than ever before
    The carbon embedded in the exports helps the United States meet its political goals by taking it off its pollution balance sheet…
    Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. has reduced more carbon pollution from energy than any other nation, about 475 million tons between 2008 and 2013, according to U.S. Energy Department data…
    Less than one-fifth of that amount came from burning less gasoline and diesel, primarily in vehicles. But an Associated Press analysis of the data shows that U.S. exports of gasoline and diesel more than made up for the savings at home in pollution abroad, releasing more than 1 billion tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere elsewhere during the same period.
    “It’s a false image,” said Onel Masardule of the Indigenous People’s Biocultural Climate Change Assessment Initiative, a Peru-based environmental group. “In reality, the U.S. is still contaminating.”…
    The fossil-fuel trade has soared under Obama amid a domestic boom in oil and natural-gas production and the biggest increases in fuel economy in history…
    There is no clear accounting of what America’s growth as a fossil-fuel powerhouse is doing to the global-warming picture. The administration has chosen not to get to the bottom of that.
    U.S. projects that increase energy exports could be considered in such an analysis, such as huge terminals planned for the West Coast to send more coal abroad for power plants. Trade agreements could factor in the implications of energy trade on global warming. But not one trade pact negotiated by the Obama White House mentions global warming…
    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/insight/2014/12/28/01-exporting-carbon.html

    again, it’s all smoke & mirrors…so let’s call the whole CAGW scam off, & save trillions!

    28 Dec: UK Independent: Andy Rowell: Environment Agency investing pension fund in industries it regulates is ‘clear conflict of interest’
    Green watchdog accused over ‘shocking’ investment portfolio that includes fracking
    The Environment Agency (EA) has been accused of having a “clear conflict of interest” after an Independent on Sunday investigation found the UK regulator’s pension fund invests millions in controversial industries which it then regulates. In the UK the EA’s pension fund – worth a huge £2.3bn – invests in companies investing in fracking, incineration and nuclear power, all of which the Agency is involved in regulating.
    Globally, the fund also invests millions in chemical and mining companies, including diamond mining; tobacco and alcohol companies; arms manufacturers; a gambling company, as well as Starbucks which has been repeatedly accused of tax avoidance.
    The pension details are contained in a response to a Freedom of Information request from the EA, which lists the companies it had a stake in as of March this year…
    And its investments are in marked contrast to the Agency’s public image of being a leading “responsible” investor that integrates “environmental, social and governance considerations into all decision-making.” The Agency champions its commitment that by 2015 “25 per cent of the fund will be invested in the sustainable and green economy”…
    Despite these bold claims, the list reveals that the EA, which was heavily criticised last year for its response to flooding, holds £50m direct investments in oil and gas companies such as Shell, BP and BG Group, as well as millions more in indirect oil and gas funds. This year the EA commissioned a report on the risk to its fossil fuel investments becoming “stranded assets” but was advised against disinvesting. “Reducing investment exposure to the fossil industry does not precipitate a reduced prevalence of that industry,” argued its consultants.
    But green campaigners disagree…
    The fund is investing in two companies financially intertwined with fracking giant Cuadrilla, the company that has been the subject of fierce protests in Lancashire and West Sussex…
    The Cuadrilla relationship is further complicated as Lord Browne of Madingley, who sits on Cuadrilla and Riverstone’s board, has been accused of having privileged access to Lord Chris Smith, the head of the EA. Browne, a former BP boss, met Smith on numerous occasions when Cuadrilla was trying to get a permit to frack…
    The EA is also investing in Barclays, the bank behind Third Energy’s attempts to frack and conventionally drill the Ryedale Valley in North Yorkshire, and French company Total, which announced plans to invest $50m (£32m) in licences backed by fracking companies IGas, Dart Energy and partner Egdon Resources earlier this year…
    Anti-fracking groups are outraged…
    Green MP Caroline Lucas, said: “News that the Environment Agency has investments in some of the very industries it is paid to regulate is deeply shocking.”…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/environment-agency-investing-pension-fund-in-industries-it-regulates-is-clear-conflict-of-interest-9946597.html#
    COMMENT BY HARRY55: Tricky for pension fund trustees not to invest widely and without politically motivated discrimination against certain types of companies.
    Pension fund professional managers and the board of trustees have to follow the law and to do their best to grow the fund for the benefit of pensioners.
    Thankfully.
    COMMENT BY FRANKSW: Not really an investigation as such, just an excuse to list organisations on the greenie pet hate list.
    Heaven forbid that the primary function of pension funds should be to best provide funds for their pensioners, they should ignore their pension members and just be a political vehicle for the green blob instead..

    51

  • #
    john robertson

    Now what was that report by the German Auditing committee..
    We have spent $ 28 billion for electricity worth $2 billion ?
    Of course the comedy show I saw that on captured the essence of Eco-Climatism beautifully.
    Especially the new symbol, the holy windmills.

    70

    • #
      john robertson

      Oliver Welke’s Heut Show on ZDF TV 20th April 2014.
      Time to share that with your taxpayers, 21.8 billion Euros for electricity worth 2 billion. Ouch.

      30

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    0.004% Wow. Thanks, OZ.
    I feel so much better now about starting my car and going for groceries.

    Well, not really. My thought (analogy) about CO2′s role (actually all ghg) in the atmosphere (not mentioning the plant connection) is that it is like gasoline in an auto’s tank. There needs to be a certain amount for the apparatus to run effectively. Having more therein only changes the time/distance the auto can go. It doesn’t perform more effectively. Like all analogies this one gets convoluted when carried beyond the initial statement. So, rather than do that –
    HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    50

  • #
    Mervyn

    In his article titled “The Carbon and Mining Taxes”published on 1 July 2012, Mitchell Hooke wrote a marvellous piece about the carbon tax. Here is an extract:

    “At a time of global economic uncertainty, the mining and carbon taxes erode the minerals industry’’s international competitiveness. Australia should be seeking to maximize the benefits of the boom, not putting new hurdles in the way of growth in investment, exports and jobs.

    Australia’’s carbon tax starts generating $77.3 million per week from today. New figures from the Centre for International Economics show that Europe’’s emissions trading scheme——which covers 30 nations——has generated $23 million per week so far in 2012.

    Australia’’s weekly carbon tax bill is more than three times greater than Europe’’s but we emit less than a quarter of Europe’’s emissions.

    The CIE figures show that in 2013-14, Australia’’s carbon tax will be generating $127.1 million per week and $140.5 million per week in 2014-15.

    The design of world’’s biggest carbon tax fails every test of its objective and of good public policy.

    It will not materially reduce emissions nor improve Australia’’s carbon productivity. The carbon tax imposes costs on the minerals industry that none of Australia’’s resources competitors will face. These same costs also undermine the industry’’s capacity to introduce the low emissions technologies needed to reduce emissions.

    The failure to align the carbon tax with international efforts to reduce emissions means that the environmental benefits of the scheme will be negligible, while the costs on all Australians will be very real.

    The carbon tax is designed to slow the growth of Australia’’s economy and that means jobs and exports for future generations will be forgone. That is the antithesis of economic reform.”

    Mitchell Hooke was spot on!!!!!!!!!!

    50

  • #
    pat

    it’s only money…

    28 Dec: Adelaide Advertiseer: Daniel Wills: SA Water to investigate cost of keeping desal plant running as it considers cancelling mothball plan
    MOTHBALLING of Adelaide’s desalination plant will be suspended for at least three months amid fears it will cost more to shut down the facility than keep it running indefinitely.
    As the $2.2 billion plant reaches the end of its testing period on New Year’s Eve, The Advertiser can reveal SA Water has launched an inquiry which may result in it remaining operational.
    That is despite analysis showing Adelaide’s reservoirs and the River Murray are meeting the city’s water demand and desalination would not be genuinely needed unless there is a long drought…
    “We want to be sure we get the best long-term life out of the plant so that in the future, if it is needed, it’s in a condition that can be restarted at the lowest possible cost,” Mr Gobbie said.
    “Running the optimisation study will give us the information to make that decision…
    Mr Gobbie said research showed it was unlikely to be genuinely needed for some time…
    Opposition water spokeswoman Michelle Lensink said: “The decision to build a desalination plant twice the size of what was required came at great expense to the SA taxpayer and is one that we’re going to be paying for, for many years to come”.
    Mr Gobbie said the plant had met all the demands placed on it during the testing phase.
    The cost of running the plant at low capacity, or restarting it, will also be used in an SA Water submission to the Essential Services Commission on setting new consumer prices from 2016.
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/sa-water-to-investigate-cost-of-keeping-desal-plant-running-as-it-considers-cancelling-mothball-plan/story-fni6uo1m-1227168790769?from=google_rss&google_editors_picks=true

    25 Dec: Adelaide Advertiser: Cameron England: A wave generator sunk off Carrickalinga beach will cost $3 million to clean up
    SALVAGING a damaged wave generator sunk off Carrickalinga beach will cost about $3 million, but there is currently no firm timeline for its removal.
    The Oceanlinx wave generator sunk on March 2 this year while it was being towed from Port Adelaide to Port Macdonnell…
    It has remained there ever since, with an exclusion zone around it and a flashing light to warn off boats…
    The $7 million project received a $4 million Federal Government grant, but following the sinking off Carrickalinga the company running the project, Oceanlinx, collapsed, and this month was placed in liquidation.
    Another of the company’s prototypes is stranded off Port Kembla in New South Wales…
    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/a-wave-generator-sunk-off-carrickalinga-beach-will-cost-3-million-to-clean-up/story-fni6uma6-1227166451746?nk=f664b6ff8029621435488c161717bae2

    51

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    While our money may have gone to reducing global emissions by 0.004% of world total, the real story is that Everybody’s reduction

    made a difference of ZERO to world atmospheric temperature.

    Northern hemisphere residents have certainly been looking for a little global warming over the past few days but to no avail.

    Wonder what the death toll from this little freeze end up at?

    KK

    60

  • #
    pat

    29 Dec: ABC: Adelaide desalination plant to keep running despite ample water reserves
    SA Water operations and maintenance general manager Mark Gobbie said an “optimisation study” over the next three months would give the state-owned utility an “indication of the best long-term operating scenario for the plant”…
    But Opposition water spokeswoman Michelle Lensink said the decision to run the plant for another three months would be an “expensive experiment”.
    “I would have thought they would have already done those calculations,” she said.
    “They have been running it at different levels to make those sorts of decisions, and for it to be continuing in this way as an experiment that all South Australian householders have to pay for, really is quite incredible.”…
    Acting Water Minister Leon Bignell said the plant’s value would become obvious when drought conditions “inevitably returned”.
    “It’s there for when we don’t have a rainy day,” he said.
    “I think when it is in full production, and we are in the grips of a terrible drought, it will be seen as one of the best pieces of infrastructure ever built in South Australia.”
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-29/adelaide-desal-plant-to-keep-running/5991256

    31

  • #
    pat

    29 Dec: The Conversation: Big accounting firms taking the lead on sustainable development
    by Carol A Adams, Professor at Monash University
    Disclosure Statement: Carol A Adams is a Chartered Accountant (ICAS), a member of: the ACCA’s Global Forum on Sustainability, the Sustainability Committee of ICAS, the GRI Stakeholder Council and was a member of the IIRC’s Capitals Technical Collaboration Group. She has received funding from a number of professional accounting bodies for research in sustainability accounting and reporting and publishes in leading academic accounting journals.

    Accountants around the world are currently considering how the organisations they work for can meet the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. As experts in measurement and data controls, analysis, reporting and monitoring, it makes sense for them to take the lead.
    The goals and targets integrate economic, social and environmental aspects with the aim of achieving sustainable development in all its dimensions.
    Governments will be responsible for achievement of the goals and a key tool will be legislation and soft regulation requiring measurement and accountability by private and public sector organisations…
    The issue of stranded assets, has also attracted ongoing discussion, with the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants concluding the risk of a “carbon bubble” due to excess fossil fuel reserves, and hence their over-valuation, is “substantial”….
    The Climate Disclosure Standards Board (led by accountant Lois Guthrie) has this month released (LINK) its proposed climate change reporting requirements for adoption by stock exchanges around the world…
    http://theconversation.com/big-accounting-firms-taking-the-lead-on-sustainable-development-35261
    Click on Adams’ name for her full profile which includes:
    She holds a PART TIME research professor position at Monash University…
    Carol is also a Director of Integrated Horizons (www.integrated-horizons.com), and provides advice on integrating sustainability to senior executives and finance professionals in companies, universities, public sector organisations and NGOs around the world. She writes on her website Towards Sustainable Business at http://www.drcaroladams.net...

    Climate Disclosure Standards Board: Developing climate resilient stock markets
    Climate change risks are imperceptible, creeping and systemic in nature and lead to widespread destruction of value and harm to the public interest…
    Decisions made now will affect the scope and scale of climate impacts…
    Stock exchanges are uniquely positioned to strengthen economic & climate resilience and security…
    Download the report (30 pages)
    (from the report)
    Acknowledgements: CDSB is grateful to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth (FCO) Prosperity Fund for providing funding for this report.
    Warming of the climate system is unequivocal…
    Reliable information about climate change is also crucial for unlocking the private investor capital that is critical to addressing climate-financing needs…
    The World Economic Forum estimates that between US$ 700 billion and US$ 1 trillion per annum is required for investment in climate change related mitigation and adaptation activities including efficient infrastructure and resilient agriculture and water resources…
    Shareholders, including large pension funds, foundations and socially responsible investors, are filing resolutions to encourage companies to address environmental, social and governance issues…
    Pension funds taking account of and disclosing decisions/policies on environmental and social issues…
    http://cdsb.net/developing-climate-resilient-stock-markets

    31

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Pat, that description reads like a parallel to how a cancerous growth spreads and invades every little nook and cranny.

      Your example of the invading warmer exec is after money and power whereas the cancer is just propagating and doing what it does without malice.

      KK

      40

  • #
    handjive

    OCTOBER 31, 2008
    Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme: $1 a day to save planet

    “THE Rudd Government has moved to ease fears about the impact of its emissions trading scheme, releasing Treasury modelling showing the scheme is affordable, with households paying up to $7 a week more for electricity and gas, and no industries forced offshore.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/business-old/a-dollar-a-day-to-save-the-planet/story-e6frg976-1111117905858

    10

    • #

      $14 billion among 23 million = $600 each. So it is less than a dollar a day. But per household of four it means $2400 dollars over two years that each family did not get to spend on books, medicine, holidays, kids dancing lessons or other things. How much poorer are we because the government thinks we ought to try to change the weather…

      162

      • #

        Well yer know, Jo, guvuhmint white elephant subsidizing
        is kinda’ like climate modelling. Add or subtract a degree
        selectively here or there, add a few zero’s there, not ter
        worry,what’s a zero anyway? Why it’s nuthin,’… all kinda’
        unreal, really.

        61

      • #
        Dariusz

        There is never enough for gov. They will tax us as much as we allow them. Once the tax is increased there is hardly any way to come back. Gov. has no responsibility and is a leading reason for the poverty. Jo, I know you a libertarian 9!o
        like me.
        Drinking champagne in Bali now. Obviously gov. did not taxed me enough.

        40

      • #
        Peter C

        Less than one dollar per day per person over 2 years sounds affordable. But the waste is sickening and heartbreaking. What could we have done with 14 billion dollars to improve our country or our defence or our society (including all the things that Jo mentioned)?

        30

        • #

          Why couldn’t you have done those things anyway?

          The truth is, none of the other things you desire are going to happen, because there isn’t political will for it.

          15

      • #
        Robert O

        Jo, it’s good to see figures put on a per capita basis; gives the average person a sense of these millions and billions frittered away. On top of this one can add about the same amount for the fly-in/boat arrivals who came when PM Rudd opened the borders to all and sundry.

        Still haven’t seen a valid mathematical relationship between global temperature and levels of CO2, so what is the scientific basis, if any, for demonising carbon?

        21

  • #
    Timboss

    The carbon tax was not on everything so your second graph shows it being very effective where it was applied. Thanks!

    213

    • #
      James Bradley

      Timboss,

      How do you figure that?

      The second graph actually shows emmissions at the same level of 136 for a longer period before the carbon tax in 2009 than when they were back down to 136 in 2013 during the carbon tax .

      That would prove that other factors reduced CO2 more significantly than the carbon tax – otherwise commonsense would tell you that all other things being equal CO2 should have reduced below 136 during the period of the carbon tax.

      It also proves that the carbon tax did nothing other than waste 13.8 billion hard earned tax payer dollars for zero return.

      Stupidity is an action from which no one benefits.

      Socialism is an action from which none but the important benefit…

      103

      • #
        Timboss

        Jo’s done some reordering, but anyway, any graph that shows the breakdown by sector shows a clear decline in emissions from electricity.

        08

    • #
      Dariusz

      Effective how? We live on the co2 starved planet. I suspect that if one believes in that greenhouse effect crap of this trace gas perhaps this is the reason why we had some so many ice ages recently?

      71

      • #
        Peter C

        I suspect that if one believes in that greenhouse effect crap of this trace gas perhaps this is the reason why we had some so many ice ages recently?

        Correct Dariusz. The Greenhouse Theory does not impress.

        61

      • #
        James Bradley

        Yep,

        A greenhouse provides the environment for CO2.

        CO2 does not provide the environment for a greenhouse.

        90

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          James,

          You have been told this before … you are not allowed to make rational comments like that, in front of the vapourous lovies. You know it gives them palpitations.

          60

          • #
            James Bradley

            Sorry Rereke,

            I’m kinda old fashioned, you know more sticks and stones and less counselling or more speed work and less weights.

            I’m going for affect here and palpatations are so passe’ (just imagine a squiggly thing above the ‘e’).

            What I’m going for is a fifty/fifty between an apoplexy and a conniption.

            71

  • #
    Ruairí

    It was Labor the Carbon-Tax faction, Raised billions in taxes for action,
    To cool land and sea,
    By not one degree,
    But the minutest part of a fraction.

    141

  • #
    Dariusz

    The more I read the more I realise that perhaps the “greenhouse effect” is a another con.? In Experimental closed systems perhaps it works. The Greenhouses yes, but Earth is not a closed system. To compare our Earth to some experiment and make an extrapolation is a high call under the best of circumstances.
    In geology you can model depositional environments which are far less complex than the weather patterns and still nobody believes in them. Only management does, but this is because they don not understand the mechanics and they spent money on it. Any parallels? Over the years if results are published even geos start to believe them. Why? Because the results are usually in colour and and there is no uncertainty analysis included. Look at the NASA co2 simulation on YouTube that is full crappolinni. Sorry still not learned how to link it.
    Another thing from geo point of view is that there is no correlation between co2 and temperature. End of discussion.
    More champagne pls

    92

  • #
    pat

    14 Dec: Real Climate: Ten Years of RealClimate: Where now?
    And a bunch of early career researchers with enthusiasm, time to spare and things to say, have morphed into institute directors and administrators with lots of new pressures. Obviously, blogging frequency has decreased in the last year or so in response to these pressures and this raises the question: where does RealClimate go now? Is RealClimate’s mission ‘Climate science from climate scientists’ still needed? There are successful sites about climate science that aren’t run by scientists, but that nevertheless do a good job in providing pointers to the mainstream science, most notably SkepticalScience.com, Climate Central and Carbon Brief, and there are many climate scientists who are on Twitter (over 250 via this list curated by Tamsin Edwards)…
    A clean slate
    A number of us – Gavin, Mike, Ray P. and Ray B. – will be stepping away from an active role in running the blog in 2015. They’ll still contribute occasional guest posts and interact in the comments, but the day-to-day roles will be passed on. Though they will continue posting on Twitter (which requires a little less overhead): @ClimateOfGavin, @MichaelEMann, @Climatebook and @raybradleyUMass. Stefan, Eric, David and Rasmus will continue to contribute, though perhaps not at the same rate. This will leave some holes in the roster, and so we are making a…
    Call for proposals
    Specifically, we are putting out an open call for climate scientists to join the RealClimate team. We are looking for early career researchers who have a desire to explain the science and engage with the public who want to be part of a group that makes that a little easier. You should be an active researcher in a climate-related field (including impacts), at postdoc level or beyond, and have an enthusiasm to explain the science quite generally, not just about your own research. You might already have your own blog, or you might just want to give blogging a try to see how it feels. And all of it as a purely voluntary and unpaid activity!…
    ***Additionally, we are specifically looking for someone with blogging experience to act as a general editor…
    comment by ferdberple -
    ***Additionally, we are specifically looking for someone with blogging experience to act as a general editor. =======
    Anthony Watts is your man. Proven experience creating a successful climate blog.
    [Response: sorry, we should have mentioned that we are a climate science blog. – gavin]
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/12/ten-years-of-realclimate-where-now/

    31 comments between 14 -25 December…nothing to get excited about.

    31

  • #

    Unless everyone does their share, this problem will never get solved.

    18

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Problem? What problem? I don’t see a problem.

      The sun comes up at the proper time, it goes down at the proper time, it rains at much the same time of year, with much the same volume of water.

      Things vary with the natural rhythms that the earth has followed for ages, and the sun changes within its historical limits.

      Even the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is probably not unprecedented, except for the fact that it has become fashionable to be vapourous over it.

      And besides, nothing we are doing today has any impact on changing anything with the climate at all.

      I am happy to do my share of nothing.

      42

      • #
        diogenese2

        Rereke the problem is explained by Pat # 36 ; the clan of Rattus Norvegicus have abandoned the sinking Skeptical Science blog and they desperately need a few “early career researchers”, aka sad losers, to pretend that the “glory days” of generous grants is not over (otherwise why “unpaid”).
        To see what they really offer google “your never alone with a strand”, an historically bad play.
        “you might want to try blogging and see how it feels”
        If you have ever jumped naked into a mess of cactus – you will know.

        22

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Hard to fix what does not exist.

      32

    • #
      david smith

      Well, you’re obviously not doing your “share” as you’re surfing the net,using up electricity, and sat in front of a computer who’s component parts use a lot of oil-based plastic.
      Unless of course your computer is made solely of bamboo and is powered by unicorn f@rts.

      David, do you own a car? How many times have you flown in a plane in the last ten years? How many things in your house are made of plastic? How much of the electricity you use daily is produced solely by renewables (hydro doesn’t count as the greenies don’t regard it as renewable)? How do you heat/cool your home? Do you own a refrigerator? Have you ever been to hospital?
      Life without fossil fuel would be ‘nasty, brutish, and short’ and I for one would not want to live without them. You can go and live in a cave if you want but don’t expect me to follow you.

      32

    • #
      James Bradley

      David Appell,

      Which problem would that be, David?

      The problem where for the last 30 years CO2 based models have failed to match-up with evidence and observations thereby proving CO2 is not a climate factor despite CO2 increasing.

      The problem where the ’18 year pause’ is now tacitly acknowledged, but has to be explained away in terms of hidden heat and other catastrophic climate theories.

      The problem where dams remain full, crops yields increase and snow keeps falling.

      The problem where Kansas’ ‘Tornado Alley’ has now experienced the lowest number of tornados in 25 years and the lowest average in 30 years.

      The problem where the NASA CO2 satellite data refutes evidence that industrialised nations are producing the most CO2 and shows instead the greatest CO2 production at the equator and lessening towards the poles.

      The problem replicating certain alarmist research because data is hidden or not released.

      The problem trying to convince anyone with an ounce of common sense that 59 papers alluding to man made global warming against 11,944 papers that do not still mysteriously equals a 97% consensus of all the world’s scientists.

      The problem where for 30 years alarmists are still trying to fit CO2 to global warming despite the failure of every attempt.

      The problem where alarmists are dismayed at the prospect that the globe may not be warming.

      Or maybe it’s the greatest problem of all, how to maintain grants and subsidies against the mounting evidence that global warming is not man made.

      11

  • #
    Alan Watt

    $14b to reduce global emissions by 0.004% — in the boxing world, this is called “leading with your chin”.

    50

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Hmmm, so for only $350,000 billion more we can eliminate the ACO2. What a bargain!

    31

  • #
    Cookster

    I have not read through all the replies but what these Australian CO2 emissions figures seem to ignore is the effect on rising network costs to build new transmission infrastructure (poles & wires). The economic idea behind the carbon tax is to reduce consumption by increasing the price. So ANY price increase should have the desired effect of reducing demand for electricity from coal powered sources.

    I can’t speak for all Australian states but in NSW – the largest state by population – the majority of retail electricity price increase was not from the carbon tax but from rising network costs due to investment in new power infrastructure (refer link).

    The other factors are the end of the Mining boom in Australia due to a rapid fall in commodity prices such as Iron Ore and recent drought conditions meaning lower emissions from agriculture. These factors – especially Mining – saw economic growth soften in Australia over the last two quarters of the Carbon Tax which they are getting excited about. In reacting to this mews warmists have also ignored the obvious link between economic activity and emissions.

    http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au/Home/About_Us/FAQs?dlv_faq%20list=%28dd_industries=electricity%29

    20

  • #
    Cookster

    OT but Matthew England of the University of NSW is at it again. Once again the focus is on surface temperature “records” and ignores what the satellite records say.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-shift-in-the-pacific-may-accelerate-global-warming-20141229-12f6dp.html

    20

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Climate shift in the Pacific may accelerate global warming

      Or, “Natural cycles in the global weather system may appear as changes to climate in the Pacific”?

      Ooo, look everybody, we have a choice of cause and effect. Matthew England was obviously asleep during that particular Propaganda-101 lecture.

      And to address Cookster’s point (so I don’t appear overly rude), I have recently been told, by a journalist, that the satellite record is “not authentic”. My gaster was so flabbered, that I could not even think of a suitable retort.

      60

  • #
    Pat Lane

    Just for fun, I did a quick calculation based on Jo’s post:

    The Department of the Environment tells us that Australia’s emissions targets are a 25% reduction by 2020 and a 80% reduction by 2050.

    To achieve the 25% reduction, at the current rate of $14 billion per 0.0004% reduction, requires a multiplier of 50,000 (25%/0.0004%) and 62,500 (80%/0.004%) for the 80% reduction.

    The cost for the 25% reduction is then $A875 trillion; the cost for the 80% reduction is $A2,800 trillion or $A2.8 quadrillion. (“A quadrillion here, a quadrillion there: pretty soon you’re talking real money.”)

    Trading Economics tells us that Australia’s 2013 GDP was $US1.56 trillion or $A1.92 trillion.

    At that rate, it will take 456 years of spending Australia’s entire GDP to achieve a 25% reduction and 1,459 years to achieve the 80% reduction.

    At 25 years per generation, that over 18 generations to achieve the 25% target and more than 58 generations for the 80% target.

    However, with all GDP being spent on emissions reduction its unlikely we’ll have any descendants anyway. The whole scheme will probably fizzle out in our children’s or grand children’s time due to starvation, pestilence and all the other “natural” processes our wicked modern life has denied us. While our successors will probably not be too pleased with us, Gaia will be rapt.

    I understand this calculation is silly, as the cost-to-reduction relations is unlikely to be linear.

    It’s interesting to see what projections based on (admitted slippery) actual numbers, rather than computer models, look like.

    Pat

    00

  • #
    sophocles

    The western economy nose-dived—or crashed—in 3rd Q 2008. By end 2nd Q 2009, the recession had begun. Oz’s mining didn’t stop as it had past contracts to fill.

    Once those were finished, there were far fewer if any contracts coming in and the mining boom ended, with layoffs. What’s the state of the industry now?

    Compare the dates of that economic change with the graph. How much of that reduction is purely because of reduced economic activity?

    If I’m right, we should see it turn around and start to rise again up to the end of 2017. Then there will be another crash
    Sept/Oct 2017. And the graph will dip again.

    10

  • #
    Pat Lane

    Woops! I used 0.0004% instead of 0.004%! My numbers are off by a factor of 10.

    Just for fun, I did a quick calculation based on Jo’s post:

    The Department of the Environment tells us that Australia’s emissions targets are a 25% reduction by 2020 and a 80% reduction by 2050.

    To achieve the 25% reduction, at the current rate of $14 billion per 0.004% reduction, requires a multiplier of 5000 (25%/0.004%) and 6250 (80%/0.004%) for the 80% reduction.

    The cost for the 25% reduction is then $A87.5 trillion; the cost for the 80% reduction is $A280 trillion.

    Trading Economics tells us that Australia’s 2013 GDP was $US1.56 trillion or $A1.92 trillion.

    At that rate, it will take 45.6 years of spending Australia’s entire GDP to achieve a 25% reduction and 145.9 years to achieve the 80% reduction.

    At 25 years per generation, that over 1.8 generations to achieve the 25% target and more than 5.8 generations for the 80% target.

    However, with all GDP being spent on emissions reduction its unlikely we’ll have any descendants anyway. The whole scheme will probably fizzle out in our children’s or grand children’s time due to starvation, pestilence and all the other “natural” processes our wicked modern life has denied us. While our successors will probably not be too pleased with us, Gaia will be rapt.

    I understand this calculation is silly, as the cost-to-reduction relations is unlikely to be linear.

    It’s interesting to see what projections based on (admitted slippery) actual numbers, rather than computer models, look like.

    Pat

    20

  • #
    pat

    (4 pages) 29 Dec: Today Online: Singapore ‘faces constraints in further emission cuts’
    As the Republic prepares to commit to a global pact on climate change in Paris next year — when targets for carbon emission levels after 2020 will be set — experts TODAY spoke to felt Singapore faces limitations in its potential to further reduce emissions…
    With an economic base still focused on processing and manufacturing, significant reductions will be hard to achieve, some felt…
    Research associate Melissa Low from the Energy Studies Institute at the National University of Singapore (NUS) told TODAY it is hard to compare the nation’s performance with that of other countries, given how Singapore is a small city state that is reliant on imported fossil fuels and that its economy still depends on energy-intensive industries such as processing, unlike in the European Union, where the economic downturn has led to a growth in services, which may help reduce emissions in the continent…
    NTU’s Professor Euston Quah pointed out that further efforts to cut carbon emissions or increase energy efficiency would result in higher costs, while barely making a dent in reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere globally. At present, Singapore contributes to less than 0.2 per cent of global emissions…
    “Given that our contribution is already so low, reducing (it) further by increasing energy efficiency would not make sense economically,” he said.
    ***Carbon emissions, he felt, are “necessary by-products” of industry and economic activities, which not only bring about growth, employment and income, but could also provide financial resources to reduce pollution and other environmental degradation…
    http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/spore-faces-constraints-further-emission-cuts

    do what’s in your own interest, Singapore.

    28 Dec: Daily Mail: Who said crime doesn’t pay? Counting prostitution and drugs in the GDP figure has seen the UK’s economy overtake France as fifth largest in the world
    Activities now counted as part of overhaul in measuring economic output
    Government figures show that prostitution added about £4.3billion to the economy while illegal drugs provided a roughly £6.7billion boost…
    The change, which was introduced as part of EU rules implemented earlier this year, means that a booming sex trade or an expansion in the market for illegal drugs can boost the Chancellor’s outlook…
    But experts at the Centre for Economics and Business Research, who produced the World Economic League Table, noted that France did not include the sex work and illegal drugs in its estimations.
    It added that, if it did, there was a possibility that it might retake its fifth place position – and that the UK might drop down to sixth.
    France does not include prostitution and illegal drugs in calculations as it does not believe they constitute ‘voluntary commercial activity’, adding that they are often tied to criminal networks…
    The data classes growing drugs or importing them as ‘production’, buying them for home use as ‘expenditure’ and selling them as ‘income’.
    It covers crack cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, cannabis, ecstasy and amphetamines…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2888416/Who-said-crime-doesn-t-pay-Counting-prostitution-drugs-GDP-figure-seen-UK-s-economy-overtake-France-fifth-largest-world.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    the basics are clear, the maths is simple, says media darling & “shock therapist”, Jeffrey Sachs:

    30 Dec: SMH: Jeffrey Sachs: How to pay for climate safety
    The purpose of the global financial system is to allocate the world’s savings to their most productive uses. When the system works properly, these savings are channeled into investments that raise living standards; when it malfunctions, as in recent years, savings are channeled into real-estate bubbles and environmentally harmful projects, including those that exacerbate human-induced climate change.
    The year 2015 will be a turning point in the effort to create a global financial system that contributes to climate safety rather than climate ruin. In July, the world’s governments will meet in Addis Ababa to hammer out a new framework for global finance.
    The meeting’s goal will be to facilitate a financial system that supports sustainable development, meaning economic growth that is socially inclusive and environmentally sound..
    The basics are clear. Climate safety requires that all countries shift their energy systems away from coal, oil, and gas, toward wind, solar, geothermal, and other low-carbon sources…
    Several major pension funds and foundations in the United States and Europe have recently made the move. They have wisely heeded the words of the former CEO of oil giant BP, Lord Browne, who recently noted that climate change poses an “existential threat” to the oil industry…
    Every ton of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, or gas adds to long-term global warming, and therefore to the long-term costs that society will incur through droughts, floods, heat waves, extreme storms, and rising sea levels. While these future costs cannot be predicted with precision, recent estimates put the current social cost of each added ton of atmospheric CO2 at $10-100, with the US government using a middle-range estimate of about $40 per ton to guide energy regulation…
    With international oil prices dropping – by a whopping $40 per barrel since the summer – this is an ideal moment for governments to introduce carbon pricing..
    Moreover, new revenues from carbon taxes would be a boon for governments. High-income countries have promised to help low-income countries invest in climate safety, both in terms of low-carbon energy and resilience against climate shocks. Specifically, they have promised $100 billion in climate-related financing per year, starting in 2020, up from around $25-30 billion this year. New revenues from a CO2 tax would provide an ideal way to honor that pledge…
    The math is simple…
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-to-pay-for-climate-safety-20141230-12fcrs.html

    the Sachs article first appeared at Project Syndicate, which also has the following:

    23 Dec: ProjectSyndicate.org: Adair Turner: Please Steal Our Fossil Fuels
    (Adair Turner, a former chairman of the United Kingdom’s Financial Services Authority and former member of the UK’s Financial Policy Committee, is a senior fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking and at the Center for Financial Studies in Frankfurt.)
    With just days left to go, 2014 seems certain to be the warmest year on record, or at least the runner-up…
    The New Climate Economy report, launched by the United Nations in September, estimates that the investment required over the next 15 years will total $14 trillion. But the incremental capital costs relative to a high-carbon economy are a smaller $4 trillion, less than a third of 1% of global GDP over that period. And the maximum sacrifice of future income per capita will be no more than 1-4% of global GDP. That means that the world might have to wait, say, until December 2051 to reach the income and prosperity level that it would otherwise have achieved the preceding January.
    So we do not need fossil fuels to support prosperous economies. If some extra-terrestrial thief came in the night and stole two-thirds of the planet’s coal, gas, and oil reserves, all of humanity could still enjoy the household appliances, information-technology products and services, heating, lighting, and mobility that define the modern world…
    But no such thief exists, and we are cursed with fossil fuels in dangerous abundance. Some environmentalists claim that we will soon reach “peak fossil fuels,” making green energy essential not only for the climate, but also for continued growth. Sadly, that is not the case.
    Total gas and coal reserves could support current demand for more than a hundred years, and technological progress – for example, hydraulic fracturing, which has unlocked shale energy – makes an ever growing share of these reserves economically attractive…
    As 2014 draws to an end, falling oil, gas, and coal prices threaten to undermine investment in green energy and stimulate wasteful consumption. In the United States, sport and crossover utility vehicles – the largest of which are five meters long and weigh 2.6 tons – are the automobile market’s fastest growing sector…
    Whatever deity might have put fossil fuels on earth has shown no willingness to take them back. Maybe this holiday season we should wish for a miracle. Absent that, we should commit to leaving most fossil fuels forever in the ground.
    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/low-fuel-prices-threaten-environment-by-adair-turner-2014-12

    20

  • #
    Climate Researcher 

    The Australian government needs to be called to account for failing to pay due diligence in checking what is totally invalid physics leading to the false conclusion that carbon dioxide and water vapour warm Earth’s surface. You can read it yourself on NASA’s website here.

    I quote NASA …

    “When greenhouse gas molecules absorb thermal infrared energy, their temperature rises. Like coals from a fire that are warm but not glowing, greenhouse gases then radiate an increased amount of thermal infrared energy in all directions. Heat radiated upward continues to encounter greenhouse gas molecules; those molecules absorb the heat, their temperature rises, and the amount of heat they radiate increases. At an altitude of roughly 5-6 kilometers, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the overlying atmosphere is so small that heat can radiate freely to space.

    Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.”

    This NASA explanation is totally incorrect physics. You cannot add back radiation flux to solar flux and use the total in Stefan Boltzmann calculations to determine Earth’s surface temperatures. It is not even correct to treat the surface as a black body.

    Planetary tropospheric and surface temperatures are determined by thermodynamic processes which include primarily sensible heat transfer rather than just radiative heat transfer.

    For a full explanation of all this (including the very relevant thermodynamic equilibrium state with maximum entropy and no unbalanced energy potentials) read “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” and have a Happy and more relaxed New Year, knowing that all climate is governed by cycles that are regulated by planetary orbits, as seen here in this plot based on such orbits.

    30

  • #
    Pat Lane

    Jo,

    Thanks for the post.

    Having made a boo-boo in my original post, I’m keen to get my facts straight before I send a modified version to my local paper.

    In your end notes you say “Humans add about 8 Gt to the atmosphere annually. Plants, oceans and soils add 208Gt. We produce about 4% of global CO2 emissions.” From the 8 Gt and 208 Gt you get the ~ 416 Gt per two years and 8/208 = 3.7% ~= 4%. All good so far.

    1. Are these number Gt or GtC?
    2. Can you point me to a reference? http://cdiac.ornl.gov/GCP/carbonbudget/2013/# (Le Quéré et al. 2013) shows much smaller fluxes for vegetation and oceans. Is that because they only show the net flux, not the separate outgoing and incoming fluxes?

    I look forward to your comments.

    Thanks
    Pat

    00

  • #

    14 billion would have bought a lot of medical care.

    00

  • #
    pat

    rebuked the PM? hmmm!

    30 Dec: SMH: Latika Bourke: Liberal MP rebukes Abbott on coal and says gas is the future for developing nations
    One of the Liberal Party’s rising stars has rebuked Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s claim that coal is the key to providing developing countries with low-cost energy.
    NSW Liberal MP Angus Taylor, who was elected the member for Hume in the 2013 election, says gas is the better way to reduce carbon emissions and supply countries such as China and India with the energy they need to continue their rise.
    Mr Taylor, a Rhodes scholar and former partner at McKinsey, told Fairfax Media that the fastest way for the world to reduce carbon emissions while containing energy prices “is to build new natural gas generators, instead of coal generators, in the developing world”…
    “The IPCC itself accepts that gas can drive sharp reductions in emissions,” he said…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/liberal-mp-rebukes-abbott-on-coal-and-says-gas-is-the-future-for-developing-nations-20141230-12fg3k.html

    or is the above a Fairfax/Latika beat-up?

    Wikipedia: Angus Taylor
    Since his election, Taylor has called on the Coalition government to reduce its support for wind farms and is concerned with Australia’s renewable energy target (RET) on the basis that renewable energy projects, in particular wind, are driving up electricity costs and crowding out cheaper carbon reduction methods…
    Taylor was a speaker at the Wind Power Fraud Rally organised by the blog StopTheseThings.com and hosted by Alan Jones on 18 June 2013 in Canberra…
    Taylor’s attendance with other liberal parliamentarians widened the rift in Coalition ranks over renewable energy targets…
    In April 2014, Taylor, along with New South Wales state members of parliament Pru Goward, John Barilaro and Katrina Hodgkinson, criticised the ACT government’s support of wind farms in New South Wales, while not allowing any in the ACT itself…
    Taylor has referred to anthropogenic climate change as “the new climate religion” telling Parliament that “religious belief is based on faith not facts. The new climate religion, recruiting disciples every day, has little basis on fact and everything to do with blind faith.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Taylor_(politician)

    00

  • #
    pat

    a bit more detail about Adair Turner whose “Please Steal Our Fossil Fuels” i posted earlier:

    Wikipedia: Adair Turner, Baron Turner of Ecchinswell
    Jonathan Adair Turner, Baron Turner of Ecchinswell is a British businessman, academic, a member of the UK’s Financial Policy Committee, and was Chairman of the Financial Services Authority until its abolition in March 2013.
    He is the former Chairman of the Pensions Commission and the Committee on Climate Change…
    His career with BP started in 1979 and he worked for Chase Manhattan Bank from 1979-82. He became a director of McKinsey & Co in 1994 after joining in 1982…
    In 2008 he was appointed Chairman of the UK Government’s nascent Committee on Climate Change. He stepped down from this position in Spring 2012…
    In April 2013, it was announced that Lord Turner would be joining George Soros’ economic think tank (Institute for New Economic Thinking) as a senior research fellow in its London offices.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adair_Turner,_Baron_Turner_of_Ecchinswell

    00

  • #
    pat

    dana says look…i’ve narrowed the CAGW sceptics down to the Tea Partiers and a few like-minded Aussies & Canadians!

    31 Dec: Guardian: Dana Nuccitelli: Time is running out on climate denial
    But is it running out fast enough?
    From a strictly logical perspective, it’s hard to understand how we can be doing so little to slow global warming.
    ***Greg Craven summarized why by examining the extreme possible outcomes in his viral climate ‘decision grid’ video (titled The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever see) …
    In fact, there are few groups that don’t support significant action to curb carbon pollution. The US military views climate change as a serious threat. The Pope is rumored to be planning a major effort to encourage an international agreement on climate policy targets in 2015. A growing number of faith groups support climate action, viewing it as an issue of stewardship. Even a majority of non-Tea Party Republicans agree that the planet is warming and support an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050…
    61% of Republicans under the age of 50 support government action to cut carbon pollution. Conservative policymakers in the USA, Australia, and Canada are among the last major holdouts obstructing action to curb climate change, but in the face of physical reality and growing public will, that’s not a sustainable political position…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/dec/30/time-is-running-out-on-climate-denial

    ***so Dana is using a video that was made in 2007 to make his case! Craven has virtually disappeared online – his gregcraven.org website is no long available.

    2010: Judith Curry: AGU Fall Meeting. Part III: An Open Letter From Greg Craven
    Mea Mega Culpa: an Open Letter from Greg Craven re: Dec. 15th speech at AGU.
    http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/18/agu-fall-meeting-part-iii-an-open-letter-from-greg-craven/

    00

  • #
    pat

    Dana Nuccitelli using the 2007 video of Craven’s reminds me of:

    on 27 Dec, ABC broadcast the TED Radio Hour, “Fixing Our Broken Systems” which included a 2010 TED Talk – “Can Video Games Solve Real Issues?” – by Jane McGonigal. this was an NPR TED Radio Hour from 2012 featuring an interview with McGonigal as an excuse for a replay, i guess. however you look at it, an old, old program:

    May 2012: NPR: Transcript: Can Video Games Solve Real Issues? by Jane McGonigal
    JANE MCGONIGAL: I’m Jane McGonigal. I am a game designer and my TED Talk was about the crazy idea that gamers may be our best hope for solving the world’s toughest challenges…
    ***If we want to solve problems like hunger, poverty, climate change, global conflict, obesity, I believe that we need to aspire to play games online for at least 21 billion hours a week by the end of the next decade…
    MCGONIGAL: So I looked at games like World of Warcraft, which is really the ideal collaborative problem-solving environment. Whenever you show up in one of these online games, especially in World of Warcraft, there are lots and lots of different characters who are willing to trust you with a world-saving mission, right away…
    MCGONIGAL: … Now, I know you’re asking, how are we going to solve real world problems in games? Well, that’s what I have devoted my work to over the past few years, at the Institute for the Future. So this is World Without Oil. We made this game in 2007. This is an online game in which you try to survive an oil shortage. The oil shortage is fictional, but we put enough online content out there for you to believe that it’s real and to live your real life as if we’ve run out of oil…
    STEWART: Jane, the games you’ve created like World Without Oil and another one called Evoke, that you created with the ***World Bank Institute, they brainstorm solutions for real-world problems, but what happens with those ideas when the game is over?
    MCGONIGAL: Right. So we actually do a lot to try to make the ideas that players generate actionable. So World Without Oil, we created a resource at the end of the game called World Beyond Oil, from A to Z. You can actually go into the game and you can see all of the solutions compiled, kind of like a Wikipedia for the future, if you need them.
    You know, for an example like Evoke, we were actually able to fund more than 50 real start-up ventures created by the players during the game to do crowd source funding, through global giving, and get them mentors…
    http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=153235606

    wonder why ABC would drag this old thing out at the end of 2014?

    no prizes for guessing.

    00

  • #
    john

    So the reduction was .004. How much CO2 was generated by all those carbon offsets (RECs)?

    00

  • #

    This has nothing to do with the Heart Health Thread or the Megadrought Thread, and is way off topic for both, so I hope that putting it here will not necessarily mean that the comment vanishes without trace, my hope that people lookk at the recent comments list of ten comments where it will stay visible for a little while at least, and some of you may come back this far and read it.

    Last night on 7.30, they were discussing the recent low oil price and its possible effects.

    In that segment there was one minute devoted to electric cars, and I have the link to the segment which includes the video (just on seven and a half minutes) and the text of that segment.

    Link to 7.30 Segment on Oil Costs

    No need to watch the whole interview, and the relevant part starts at the 3.00 mark and goes for just one minute.

    It features David Mills, a Solar Scientist, well, researcher at Sydney University on matters pertaining to Solar Thermal electricity development.

    He has an electric car, in this case a Tesla, and he says this: (my bolding)

    If you want to take your carbon footprint way down, you put solar on your house, you get a battery in your home and you get a battery car.

    You get ….. A ….. battery in your home.

    It’s not A Battery, but a very large battery bank, so, this is off grid, in other words not connected to the regular grid. To support an average rooftop system, the required off grid battery bank will cost in the vicinity of $40 to $50,000 every five to seven years. Here you also need to realise that it costs even more because this is in a leafy urban suburb in Sydney, so an off grid situation where there is a grid costs a percentage more than the original outlay.

    That’s just the average because here, this solar researcher has a larger than normal array on his home here, and I would really like to have proof that it is indeed ….. OFF GRID, not just his say so on that.

    He also says that he charges his car from his rooftop solar system.

    So here we have an outlay of around $60K PLUS every five to seven years for the replacement battery Bank, a further cost for the large Inverter which instead of working just average hours for grid connected systems, now has to work 24/7 for the (hoped for) 25 year life span of that rooftop system.

    Also, those batteries in his car also only have a certain life span as well, so there is replacement for the battery bank in the car, nothing cheap in this case at all.

    So, just for that rooftop system, we have an original outlay of around 60K for his large system, say three replacement battery banks at 50K, new Inverters etc, and we have a cost of around $210,000 all up.

    Now, had he not installed rooftop solar, and just stayed connected to the grid, and with his big system he has here, then let’s assume he is a profligate consumer of electricity, say 30KWH a day, when the average is around 20KWH per day, so even had he used excess, the cost of that electricity from the grid would have been around $90,000.

    Yep! Now that’s a real saving. Say What.

    Oh, and the Tesla he has. $160,000 worth of car.

    Hmm! I guess being a solar researcher at a university pays pretty well then, eh!

    Tony.

    30

    • #

      You saw that too, eh?

      My flabber has been too gasted to comment as tangibly as you did.

      I suspect that David Mills made his squillions by the sale of Ausra to Areva; when Ausra couldn’t find enough “punters” to buy solar thermal systems of marginal performance. Areva Solar seems to be surviving on subsidies for dead-end, feel-good projects.

      As for Mills’ current position at Sydney Uni., I can’t find out what he’s actually doing there. He doesn’t have an entry in the Univ. staff directory. He was certainly a former researcher.

      Claims about the Tesla car are, erm…, flattering. Including the battery recharge time of 45 minutes. The 2-tonne Model S has a 60 or 85(optional)kWh lithium-ion battery. Where in Sydney’s suburbs does one find an 80kW electrical power outlet? Not to worry; the car has as standard a 40A/265V charger; which is only around 10kW. So it’s a 6-hour charge for the nominal charging capacity. 3 hours with the optional 80A/2-phase charger. If you want to gamble on a “Supercharger”, then you visit the Star Casino. Mills isn’t likely to have a Supercharger at his house.

      And worth noting; fire brigades aren’t equipped (nor typically, trained) to extinguish large lithium battery fires. They probably have the sense to stand up-wind as they watch the fire burn itself out.

      We should all keep in mind that scientists are free to make mistakes, to “waste money” in the pursuit of something that turns out to be a dead end. This is, at least in principle, socially acceptable because of the knowledge gained about what works and, moreso, what doesn’t.

      However, the wider world cannot reasonably invest all of its prosperity in unknowns. Thus, the Engineers who traditionally implement the physical structures and machinery of our society operate on more conservative and pragmatic principles; and they are accountable for what they do if they take unacceptable risks and, as a consequence, destroy prosperity or damage life.

      20

      • #

        Bernd,

        that’s interesting about the size of the batteries required to run this $160,000 Car.

        As soon as I heard that 45 minute recharge time, and he actually did say from sunbeams on the roof, that means he now has to have a rooftop solar installation actually capable of providing that 60 to 85KWH, even if the charge time is over 6 hours, so, immediately, his residential power consumption is not only what his home consumes, but what is now required to recharge those batteries, eg, that 60 to 85KWH. (Power out must equal power in) So it’s not a case here of recharging those batteries every day, and even then, his residential power consumption, car included comes in at around four times (maybe even more) the average residential power consumption.

        There is no such thing as magically making power. It has to come from somewhere.

        Tony.

        20

        • #

          Oh dear, what a, umm, how do I say this politely, some small, er, porkies.

          This Tesla, costing as he says $160,000, then that makes it the Model S P85D, which has an 85KWH battery supply.

          From the Tesla own site, they say that they provide a 40Amp outlet, and they actually quote this: (my bolding)

          Equip your Model S with Dual Chargers for up to 110 kilometers of range per hour of charge.

          So, for the range he mentions, 460Km, then that’s at least 4 hours of charge and not his mention of 45 minutes.

          And that’s still a total of 85KWH per full charge. The batteries are quoted at 8 years for their life span.

          That 85KWH is around 4 or more days of ordinary power consumption from an average Australian home.

          Methinks Mister solar researcher, you may be soiling your own nest.

          Tony.

          Link to Tesla Australia Site

          20

        • #

          To be fair, Mills is unlikely to use up all the battery charge. Least of all because the battery management system will show “empty” when the actual state of charge (SoC) is something like 25% — because Li-Ion is easily destroyed when recovering from a low SoC. Given the heavy vehicle, if he drove 100km in a day, he’d be using at least 20kWh, which is difficult to top up during the night unless he’s using charged batteries to charge batteries.

          Such is the inevitable fate of EV’s.

          Now, Mills probably isn’t the same sort of NIMBY as am I (Nuclear In My Back Yard) so the sums don’t add up at all for off-grid. The PV for reliable, off-grid for 40kWh/day is enormous. Charging the car at 40A as well as running the house at the same time means having an inverter substantially larger than 10kVA on a single phase. A PV system with 40kWh/day (average) already costs well over $100,000. For a fairly-reliable supply, the array size would be around 3 times larger, depending on the longest probable series of dull days in the region. That makes the array large enough to potentially and perhaps sufficiently slow the depletion of battery storage. The effectiveness depends a great deal on panel orientation and the nature of typical cloud cover.

          In my area, I get nearly 3 weeks where daily insolation is less than one standard deviation below the mean. 10 sequential, dull days are to be expected as the norm. (Data for Medina, W.A.; from Department of Agriculture, WA.)

          00

    • #

      BTW: The economic size of battery (bank) for off-grid operation is no more than double the peak power draw for the (worst-case) time required to start the 8+kVA diesel generator.

      That diesel generator, when properly integrated, can also provide a peak heat output of around half the shaft power output; which may well be enough to provide hot water for domestic consumption; maybe sufficient for space heating during dull, winter periods. (i.e. CHP – combined heat and power)

      How much off-road diesel fuel does $40,000 buy? By my back-of-stamp calc’s, enough to generate about 160,000 kWh in electricity; cheaper than grid in some areas. Easily ahead of the battery curve. Very much ahead on the “investment” curve as not all the fuel for the 20 years’ supply has to be bought at the same time. Capital cost of a reasonable diesel generator seems to be around $10,000; cheapies under $2000; but don’t expect the latter to last more than a couple of years.

      00

    • #
      James Bradley

      I do hope he isn’t relying on big future solar dividends to support his superannuation…

      20

  • #
    mobihci

    green energy figures.. i think most people understand just how ridiculous some of the claims can be. there seems to be a need for supporters of the left to believe in their trash no matter how ridiculous though. deluded.

    how to pull figures out of your a#se-

    http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=1006&menu=1348&nr=565

    “Reducing consumption of 180,000 L/year of diesel”

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2014/1/23/solar-energy/tonga-shines-hybrid-solar-plant

    “offset an estimated 225,000 Litres of diesel”

    http://earthtechling.com/2011/09/solar-coming-to-tonga-with-new-zealand-aid/

    “while offseting 470,000 liters of diesel per year.”

    hmm, yeah, so when you read something like this, the truth is savings of somewhere between 0 litres and my guess, close to 0 litres a year (other costs introduced). whats a few million dollars worth of fuel between friends eh.

    00

  • #

    [...] before the carbon tax came in. The big 1.4% fall only came after the figures of the year before were adjusted up. The 0.8% reduction they talk about for the previous 12 months does not exist after the figures [...]

    00

  • #
    Hartog

    When I read about ‘measurement’ to come up with such a precise sounding greenhouse gas inventory, I innocently assume that every June they have a bunch of planes fly in a 10kmx10km grid at various altitudes all over Australia taking air samples and then take all that to the lab for analysis. Obviously not.
    That’s the problem I have with all these ‘measurements’ that are really guesses and assumptions.
    Look at NASA’s recent picture of the spread of CO2 across the globe. How can you come up with any ‘ppm’ for the whole globe? Same with temperatures, identifying changes with a precision of tenths of degrees or even smaller for the whole of earth.
    Probably should go back to school to learn that skepticism is not constructive.

    00

  • #
    Pedro

    Surely this article is looking at the wrong aspect of the climate change argument (at least, in terms of what we would call “the problem”)…

    The vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is put there by natural systems. That’s completely true and no-one is denying that.
    Before the industrial revolution, however, the natural systems were in balance: a lot of CO2 was being put into the atmosphere by natural systems, but natural systems were also taking a lot of CO2 out.
    The point of interest is not the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere but the balance of incoming and outgoing CO2.

    The problem is that humans now put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere but we don’t take any out. So, the balance of incoming and outgoing has been upset.

    Really, it’s misrepresenting the climate change argument to focus on absolute CO2 quantities; you should be focusing on net atmospheric CO2 increases. And the main cause of that is human activity.

    [Really Pedro, you should be focusing on exactly what the impact of a couple hundred PPM of CO2 has on climate. Since when is human activity not "natural"?] ED

    [What is this 'balance' you speak of? Was it when CO2 made up 85% of the atmosphere over 4 billion years ago, or was it when CO2 was >4,000ppm - 500ppm between 450m - 320m years ago? Coinciding with evolution, and diversification of plants, CO2 varied between 500ppm and 2,000ppm. CO2 was sequestered gradually by plants dying and leaving carboniferous deposits which turned into oil, gas, coal. By burning these as a cheap source of fuel we are simply putting CO2 back into the atmosphere from whence it came for re-use by plants. Market gardeners pump CO2 to over 1,000ppm in their glass-houses to improve production. Plants love it and workers don't require safety gear! The International Space Station operates at much higher CO2ppm!

    What a lot of people do not recognise is that in cooler climates the ice caps increase, the frozen soils where no plants grow increases, growing seasons are shorter, the altitude at which plants grow reduces. A warmer climate will naturally cause greater CO2 to be taken from the atmosphere by plants. Leaving it in the ground is starving the plants. Warmists think there is only one side to the equilibrium equation, and that is whatever humans do is bad! - Mod]

    00