What Carbon

[Moody]

.... So while I am referred to has a Denver ( untrue) I do strongly support a change in our ways to stop using the planet as a toilet.

I would never call you a Denver, but accept that the proportion of the recent climate change attributable to human activity is not an exact science.

But ..... when 99% of the "evidence" that AGW is a myth can be debunked in about 5 minutes, I unfortunately tune out to the 1% that probably has some merit.

 

[RAM]

Another example of China doing nothing about pollution. Just like the carbon tax did nothing in Australia.

Australian export risk on China dirty coal ban

Yes you're absolutely correct, China is certainly doing something about pollution (as you define it) - they are swamping the efforts of the rest of the world combined - as the report goes on to detail:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/science/earth/scientists-report-global-rise-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html?emc=edit_th_20140922&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=22199936
[h=1]Global Rise Reported in 2013 Greenhouse Gas Emissions[/h]The new numbers, reported by a tracking initiative called the Global Carbon Project and published in the journal Nature Geoscience, came on the eve of a United Nations summit meeting meant to harness fresh political ambition in tackling climate change.

For years, slow emissions declines in the West have been swamped by rising emissions in the East, and the trend continued in 2013. China’s emissions grew 4.2 percent and India’s 5.1 percent. Both countries have been constructing coal-burning power plants at a breakneck pace.

China is spending heavily on renewable and nuclear energy as it tries to slow the growth of coal, but despite those efforts it has become by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. Its emissions of 10 billion tons a year of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and cement manufacturing are almost twice those of the United States, though emissions per person are still far higher in the United States.

“China is really in a tough position,” Dr. Peters said. “Emissions have grown so much in the last 10 years or so that no matter how you look at China, it has an immense task.”

Enough said.

 

[amaroo]

Pollution is the Chinese curse .... climate change - blah.

 

[JohnK]

The inconvenient truth is not that climate change is occurring , but that it has naturally been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.

Why are you trying to bring logic into this thread?

 

[SeatBackForward]

I am still amazed that people who have doubts about humans causing climate change are called climate change deniers.
I know it's changing, it's changed before, and it will change again. I am just not satisfied that the data is extensive enough to say that we are solely responsible.
The inconvenient truth is not that climate change is occurring , but that it has naturally been occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.

Of course it changes..but not at the rates its changing now, another inconvenient truth?. As for data, fine shall we wait another 1000years to have a fair comparison period? we might need graph paper with a greater scale on it.

 

[medhead]

Oh look, another person doing nothing. BBC News - Rockefellers to switch investments to 'clean energy'

BTW did anyone watch Q & A last night and see the government representative arguing that it would be wrong for Australia to do nothing just because it wasn't our problem. Ironic much.

 

[medhead]

Of course it changes..but not at the rates its changing now, another inconvenient truth?. As for data, fine shall we wait another 1000years to have a fair comparison period? we might need graph paper with a greater scale on it.

Plenty of models out there that can and do predict both the changes over both the short term and the long term. This is comparing prediction with observation. I guess we can wait another thousand years just to be sure.

 

[Pushka]

The weather bureau can't even predict the weather 4 days ahead.

Predictions now seem to equal evidence.

 

[RAM]

This climate change supporter site (not a denier not denver site) provides a 3rd party verification of the true position of China and the pointless nature of pushing up costs in Australia while China increases its CO2 generation each year by more than Australia's total CO2 emissions as a whole.

Emissions | Global Carbon Atlas

For 2013 China increased its production by 4.2% (from the official Govt statistics mind not including the 'grey' or 'shadow' production) or by 403 million tons. Australia's total from ALL sources not just power production was (falling btw) 346 million tons. China's total production was 10,004 million tons.

Getting down to specifics, namely coal burning production of CO2 (including coal burned in domestic fires etc):
China - 6,922 mt, pop'n 1,377.1 or 5 tons per person
Aust - 186 mt, pop'n 23.1m or 8 tons per person

Extrapolating growth (Aust = decline) rates over either the last 5 years or ten years has China passing Australia's per capita coal burning emissions based on current contracted power station construction (not forecast but signed contracts) in either early 2018 (10 yr rate) or mid 2019 (5 yr rate).

Neither China nor India have its senior officials/leaders attend the UN Climate meeting - actions do speak louder than words.

 

[RAM]

Plenty of models out there that can and do predict both the changes over both the short term and the long term. This is comparing prediction with observation. I guess we can wait another thousand years just to be sure.

Absolutely true - plenty of models including a number predicting:

# no relationship between man and climate change
# temperature rises that have since not happened
# large sea level rises that nave not eventuated
# models that the creators stated would 'absolutely' prove ACC but were subsequently (by the data post-model launch) proved the opposite

However the gravy train rolls on with ever increasing snouts-in-the-trough at the tax payers expense.

It's a bit like the shrill cries that when the Western troops left Iraq there would be an end to fighting. Easy to make claims before the event. Where are all those 'experts' now?

 

[RAM]

Thought provoking article in the WSJ; (btw - for pay wall articles just google the title or first line and you can get the article completely)

People's Climate Demarche - WSJ - WSJ
[h=1]People's Climate Demarche[/h] [h=2]The anticarbon campaign stalls even at the United Nations.[/h] Tens of thousands of environmental protestors paraded through New York City on Sunday, in a "people's climate march" designed to lobby world leaders arriving for the latest United Nations climate summit. The march did succeed in messing up traffic, but President Obama won't achieve much more when he speaks Tuesday at this latest pit stop on the global warming grand prix.


Six years after the failure of the Copenhagen summit whose extravagant ambition was to secure a binding global treaty on carbon emissions, Mr. Obama is trying again. The Turtle Bay gathering of world leaders isn't formally a part of the international U.N. climate negotiations that are supposed to climax late next year in Paris, but the venue is meant to be an ice-breaker for more than 125 presidents, prime ministers and heads of state to start to reach consensus.


One not-so-minor problem: The world's largest emitters are declining to show up, even for appearances. The Chinese economy has been the No. 1 global producer of carbon dioxide since 2008, but President Xi Jinping won't be gracing the U.N. with his presence. India's new Prime Minister Narendra Modi (No. 3) will be in New York but is skipping the climate parley. Russian President Vladimir Putin (No. 4) has other priorities, while Japan (No. 5) is uncooperative after the Fukushima disaster that has damaged support for nuclear power. Saudi Arabia is dispatching its petroleum minister.
.....

What this means is that regardless of what the West does, poorer countries that are reluctant to sign agreements that impede economic progress hold the dominant carbon hand. No matter U.S. exertions to save the planet from atmospheric carbon that may or may not have consequences that may or may not be costly in a century or more, the international result will be more or less the same, though U.S. economic growth will be slower.


Mr. Modi is unlikely to indulge the rich world's anticarbon politics when a quarter of the Indian population still lacks electricity. Mr. Obama might also pause to reflect that 30.6% of the 114.8 million American households qualify for low-income energy subsidies. Thus by the Administration's own reckoning they can't afford current energy costs, much less the higher costs of a zero-carbon future.

 

[JohnK]

Of course it changes..but not at the rates its changing now, another inconvenient truth?. As for data, fine shall we wait another 1000years to have a fair comparison period? we might need graph paper with a greater scale on it.

You have no idea whether the changes are natural or man made.

 

[medhead]

You have no idea whether the changes are natural or man made.

Yes we do have an idea. Try reading some of the linked research. A couple of good indicators to summarise: 1) the rate of change is much much higher than is seen naturally. That is change that naturally takes 10000 years happens in 100 years. 2) the temperature stops increasing during a naturally cooling cycle, but it does not decrease. A natural cooling cycle means temperature must decrease, if it is not decreasing but staying the then something must be warming to offset the cooling.

It is all here in thread. You just need read the links. Or you can just stick to your opinion.

 

[Pushka]

Guess it depends which links you click.

 

[RAM]

Guess it depends which links you click.

Now repeat after me - smoking definitely does not cause cancer just look at all the studies PROVING it doesn't.

Falsifying data (Climategate), removing inconvenient data (Aust Met) etc creates more suspicion of snouts-in-the-trough than hard science disproves.


As for 10,000 years...., the medieval cooling period was not 1% of that time frame (Hypothesis disproven).

Equally the claims made in a large number of the 2003-2007 papers (referred to in this thread) specifically stated that they would be DISPROVEN if their claims did not happen (the Null hypothesis). Their claims actually did not happen and in contrast the null hypothesis' eventuated.

 

[medhead]

Now repeat after me - smoking definitely does not cause cancer just look at all the studies PROVING it doesn't.

Falsifying data (Climategate), removing inconvenient data (Aust Met) etc creates more suspicion of snouts-in-the-trough than hard science disproves.


As for 10,000 years...., the medieval cooling period was not 1% of that time frame (Hypothesis disproven).

Equally the claims made in a large number of the 2003-2007 papers (referred to in this thread) specifically stated that they would be DISPROVEN if their claims did not happen (the Null hypothesis). Their claims actually did not happen and in contrast the null hypothesis' eventuated.

I've referred to current studies. The effect of the carbon tax certainly wasn't study before it was even introduced. Just try reading them. Instead of sprouting distraction.

 

[RAM]

I've referred to current studies. The effect of the carbon tax certainly wasn't study before it was even introduced. Just try reading them. Instead of sprouting distraction.

Yes I have noted that you've 'referred to current studies'.

That is what I and others have pointed out - the past studies have predominently been proven wrong by the passage of time so it is no use you referring to them (and you do so no longer).

We have also pointed to current studies (showing a declining temperature trend since 1998 btw - not stable) as well as citing current details on the ever increasing amounts that China and others have been polluting (your or my definitions) - the increases swamp the impact of Australia.

The fact that the Aluminum industry will shortly cease to exist in Australia accounts for the majority of the decrease in electricity use since 2007 as does the closure of electric are steel production as well as the related closure of recycling facilities due to the increased costs.

True a large chunk of the electricity price rise was due to:

# State Govts requiring FITs that were non-economic
# State "pole & Wire' companies getting a guaranteed return on ANY money spent regardless of whether that equipment was actually needed
# The Carbon Tax

With the Carbon tax repeal my supplier is cutting the price a little over 7%.

From a business perspective - many companies net margins are between 1-5%. Small changes in costs have a big impact on viability.

So, Australia succeeded in sending jobs predominently to China, is seeing the closure of our Aluminum industry, the bulk of our steel industry and INCREASING carbon emissions as China has a higher proportion of new electricity generation provided by coal-fired plants than additional capacity in Australia (actually an infinitely higher rate as new coal-fired has not been happening as power demand has fallen). At the same time the bauxite ore is now shipped to China along with the iron ore that was previously processed within Australia - generating more CO2 production from the transshipping and handling. Then it is shipped back to Australia - generating even more emissions.

I do not call that a good outcome.

Overall a lose, lose, lose situation I would say.

 

[JohnK]

Yes we do have an idea.

Apologies but you are wrong.

Can you please tell me when it will rain again Brisbane? Can you please tell me the date of the next cyclone?

You fully well know that data can be twisted many ways. Rate of change is not a constant. Mother nature has a habit of throwing curve balls.

 

[medhead]

Apologies but you are wrong.

Can you please tell me when it will rain again Brisbane? Can you please tell me the date of the next cyclone?

You fully well know that data can be twisted many ways. Rate of change is not a constant. Mother nature has a habit of throwing curve balls.

When that is you position it is laughable to call me wrong. Rate of change can indeed be a constant. But if you read very carefully you will see that I never claimed that the rate of change was a constant. I said the rate of change is much much larger than it has been historically. When the rate of change is, say, 100 times the normal observed range of rate of change that certainly suggests another influence besides Mother Nature.

Seriously this has nothing to do with predicting the exact date and time of the next cyclone. What an utterly ludicrous suggestion.

 

[medhead]

Yes I have noted that you've 'referred to current studies'.

That is what I and others have pointed out - the past studies have predominently been proven wrong by the passage of time so it is no use you referring to them (and you do so no longer).

We have also pointed to current studies (showing a declining temperature trend since 1998 btw - not stable) as well as citing current details on the ever increasing amounts that China and others have been polluting (your or my definitions) - the increases swamp the impact of Australia.

The fact that the Aluminum industry will shortly cease to exist in Australia accounts for the majority of the decrease in electricity use since 2007 as does the closure of electric are steel production as well as the related closure of recycling facilities due to the increased costs.

True a large chunk of the electricity price rise was due to:

# State Govts requiring FITs that were non-economic
# State "pole & Wire' companies getting a guaranteed return on ANY money spent regardless of whether that equipment was actually needed
# The Carbon Tax

With the Carbon tax repeal my supplier is cutting the price a little over 7%.

From a business perspective - many companies net margins are between 1-5%. Small changes in costs have a big impact on viability.

So, Australia succeeded in sending jobs predominently to China, is seeing the closure of our Aluminum industry, the bulk of our steel industry and INCREASING carbon emissions as China has a higher proportion of new electricity generation provided by coal-fired plants than additional capacity in Australia (actually an infinitely higher rate as new coal-fired has not been happening as power demand has fallen). At the same time the bauxite ore is now shipped to China along with the iron ore that was previously processed within Australia - generating more CO2 production from the transshipping and handling. Then it is shipped back to Australia - generating even more emissions.

I do not call that a good outcome.

Overall a lose, lose, lose situation I would say.

Unfortunately the findings of the authors of the peer reviewed paper that investigated the affect of the carbon tax do not support your opinion. They determined the effect of the carbon tax net of reduced electricity consumption.

Interesting that you cherry pick 1998 as a starting year. What was that about data fraud. How does the year correlate with the natural cooling and warming cycles? Personally, I'm more happy to accept the findings of peer reviewed research, that considers a whole range of factors like natural cycles, over an opinion that cherry picks one year.

Next thing you'll be trying to demand to know the exact date and time of the next cyclone.