Carbon Tax

[AnonymousCoward]

Of course it matters how you measure the sea level rise.The figures i have quoted are the observed levels.

If you actually read the page you linked, there are two sets of predictions, based on two sets of measurements. So, based on the measurement methodolody, there is prediction (average of the 8 models). The prediction varies based on the measurement methodolody.

if there is an error due to changing the method of measuring then it affects whether your predictions are right or not.That is if the Predicted levels agree with an induced error you really are wrong not right as you think you are.

What you just said doesn't even make sense. To reiterate, the table you cited is to validate whether the models are within a 95% confidence interval. There are two predictions (for the two time periods). Each prediction is based on the methodology that is being used. It doesn't really matter what methodology is used - the point of the exercise is to see whether the model is able to accurately predict the observed phenomena (based on the actual methodology used). So the model will have one prediction based on satellites only, another for sea level gauges only etc. Do the models actually work? That is the point of the exercise.

And these figures have been queried by climate scientists in peer reviewed journals-google it and find it as I did.

As Wikipedia would say "citation needed". And as I mentioned earlier - actual peer reviewed journals generally require you to go to a Uni library to look up. Anyone can publish random stuff on the internet.

 

[connieguy]

If only it was constantly contested.I see just as much evidence of closed minds in Climate Change alarmists as deniers.
Now we often see graphs "proving that the earth is warming such as this-

This is the warming data from 4 independent groups(2 x US, 1 x UK, 1 x Japanese). It goes back to 1880.



Do you accept the measured data on this graph?

 

[drron]

I do.Do you accept that from 1998 this graph does not show a rapidly warming scenario?

 

[connieguy]

I do.Do you accept that from 1998 this graph does not show a rapidly warming scenario?

If you start the chart from the peak that occurred in 1998, that would seem to be the conclusion. But as 1998 was not when global temperature measurements started, as you know, then it would be an incorrect assumption. Especially when you had all the other data points to consider. I would call it picking points on the chart to try to make a conclusion that was desired and that is not good science.

So has global temperature continued to climb before and after 1998? Yes of course it has. You did read that 2010 tied for the hottest year on record and that the last decade was the hottest on record?

Here is the global distribution of temperature rise averaged over 2010. Not a pretty picture, especially in the Arctic with the rapidly melting ice cube called the Arctic Ice Cap.

 

[AnonymousCoward]

I do.Do you accept that from 1998 this graph does not show a rapidly warming scenario?

As pointed out by GoWatson, is there some reason to choose 1998 as a starting date? If there's a valid, scientific reason, then by all means use it. Additionally, are there explanations for the temperatures following that starting date?

In any case, what we expect is that temperature and sea levels will take some centuries to stabilise after the date we cut CO2 emissions to a level that the atmosphere can naturally absorb. Today we are seeing mainly rapid CO2 concentration increases. It will be centuries of change that follow that are the potential problem (Edit: taken from the SPM from the 3rd Assessment Report)

 

[eastwest101]

I do.Do you accept that from 1998 this graph does not show a rapidly warming scenario?

As we are talking about measurement of temperatures at the moment - what is peoples opinion about using this pictured measuring station and many like it? Look closely at the establishment date.

 

[connieguy]

As we are talking about measurement of temperatures at the moment - what is peoples opinion about using this pictured measuring station and many like it? Look closely at the establishment date.



View attachment 3105

With respect we are talking about averaged global temperature changes and not just one isolated weather station's data. Heat island effect has been dealt with by the 4 services that produced the current global warming chart. Oh BTW the nighest temperature rises are in the Arctic. Do you think that was caused by urban heat islands in the Arctic? Well if fact it was but the cause was probably increasing Methane releases from thawing permafrost and under sea stores.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Julia......

View attachment 3107

 

[Smackbum]

Julia......

Thanks for that Oneworldplus2 - you've managed to lower the debate even further than I thought possible. Any more where they came from because you may as well insult everyone's intelligence whilst you're on a roll.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Thanks for that Oneworldplus2 - you've managed to lower the debate even further than I thought possible. Any more where they came from because you may as well insult everyone's intelligence whilst you're on a roll.

Get over yourself!

The PM has gone and introduced a TAX which will (actually, she was forced to introduce this tax by the Greens and 3 independents!);
* Put Australia at a economic disadvantage
* Make no difference to global CO2 levels
* Give the UN 10% of the Carbon Tax collected (WTF...?)
* is not willing to embrace new technology, and l'm not talking Wind/Solar (which can't handle 'base load' for starters).
* If the Government was serious about this 'Global Warming/Climate Change/CO2' issue, why is the Solar rebate getting taken off the table?

Please watch the ABC link l posted in this thread. It looks at the European ETS and what has really happened after it was introduced. The same will happen here.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

Fatal flaw in case for a carbon tax

THE one thing you need to know about Treasury's modelling of the carbon tax is this: it assumes that by 2016, the US and all the other developed economies that do not have carbon taxes or emissions trading systems in place will have them up and running.

This implies that in next year's US presidential election, likely to be fought at a time of high unemployment, the winning candidate will campaign on the basis of introducing a carbon tax that will go from zero to $30 a tonne in a matter of months. And that tax will then not only get through Congress but in record time.

Moreover, that feat accomplished, by 2021 China will sign up too, and with 14 per cent of the world's population and barely 20 per cent of world income, will agree to shoulder 34 to 35 per cent of the costs of global mitigation. As part of that deal, China's leadership will accept a fall in national living standards, relative to business as usual, of between 5 and 10 per cent, while per capita incomes in the far wealthier US and European Union decline by a fraction of that amount. And with China on board, the rest of the world will join the party.

These assumptions are central to Treasury's analysis, not least because they ensure that by the time Australia moves to an ETS, there is a fully functioning world market for emissions permits. That world market makes it possible for permits bought overseas to contribute two-thirds of the mitigation we achieve during the period to 2020. In contrast, were the market as it is today, with more than 80 per cent of permit trading occurring within the EU, Australian demand for permits would significantly drive up prices, increasing Treasury's estimated abatement costs.

Fatal flaw in case for a carbon tax | The Australian

 

[Sprucegoose]

Thanks for that Oneworldplus2 - you've managed to lower the debate even further than I thought possible. Any more where they came from because you may as well insult everyone's intelligence whilst you're on a roll.

Well it sums it up. She said no tax and now we are dealing with a devastating tax and not mandated by the people. What arrogance!Luckily she is a one termer and you lot can go and follow another false god!

 

[Smackbum]

Well it sums it up. She said no tax and now we are dealing with a devastating tax and not mandated by the people. What arrogance!Luckily she is a one termer and you lot can go and follow another false god!

Sums up what exactly? Democracy?? A mandate is what the majority agree on - not your minority opinion.

Devastating tax.... hmmmm ... what has it cost you so far? What is it likely to cost you when it is implemented? This week I got a letter from AGL that outlined impending price rises. There have been quite a few of these recently but this latest one took my breath away. Gas is going up 16% and electricity 18.5% and the "service charge" by over 20%. This is the cost of privitisation and if it also leads to people being more energy efficient then that's a good thing, but don't make rubbish up about economic devastation that doesn't exist when far greater impacts to the economy are happening every day.

Remember the mining companies that warned of total economic collapse if they couldn't make billions out of increasingly valuable natural resources? They are now employing people at top rates to sit on their cough so that they will be available when they need them sometime down the track. A drop in the ocean compared to the $15B takeovers announced recently, but typical behaviour of a multinational with far too much power to distort the debate. They are the false gods that people really need to take a good look at.

 

[medhead]

And a lot of morons also want to shut down Australia's biggest export industry within 10 years.For a lot of 'rich' people this carbon tax means they have to pay, whilst low and middle income households are being reimbursed and according to the watermelons some will be better off. You can't change behaviours if you're not penalised. But why are the 'rich' penalised? Can the morons in government show statistics that illustrate the 'rich' pollute more? Or are they just playing Robin Hood?The government could also stop instigating multi-billion dollar white elephants like the NBN and allocate that money to research, but that would mean responsibly spending tax payer monies, which this government is incapable of.

The obvious answer is that the government is setting a price and will let the market decide. That's why they are not undertaking direct action. Seriously you target so called "white elephants" and suggest that money is just allocated to research, an approach that has massive potential to create white elephants. I think it is much better to apply a price and let the market react. That is apparently the most efficient way to do this things.

As for the robin hood bits, I would expect that to change with time and as it moves to emission trading. A key point that is missed the opening arrangement is not fixed in stone.

Nothing is ever "proven" in science - that's how the scientific method works, and how we move forward in our understanding of the universe. Contrast that to, say, religions, which start with a set statement of belief and then try to find ways to justify it.

The "theory of gravity", "the theory of the atom", the "theory of relativity", the "theory of evolution" - none are proven. However they are considered to be relatively settled, due to the large number of experiments that have been conducted that produce results that are consistent with the predictions of the theory.

Actually, that is not exactly right. Theories can and do become proven knowledge. If they remained theories forever then the scientific method doesn't workThings like gravity are proven - the attraction between masses by gravity is proven. They don't conduct continuing experiments to prove gravity works for planets, for example. That is why we can send rockets to the moon and mars. But they do conduct experiments to understand why gravity doesn't work for atomic size masses. Those experiments then get us the theory of the atom, where they discover things like nuclear forces, or relativity.

 

[medhead]

Well it sums it up. She said no tax and now we are dealing with a devastating tax and not mandated by the people. What arrogance!Luckily she is a one termer and you lot can go and follow another false god!

I hope you feel the same about the GST, because only 49% voted for that, so no mandate! Or to put it another way:

As for Ghoulia ...Mandate? Pfff... now I believe in true democracy, but that's not what we have in our country. We have parliamentary process of voting and a little bit of representation.So, actually, history shows us she doesn't need one. She just needs enough members & reps. The only thing a lack of mandate will do is possibly topple her at the next election ( or not... howard got away with it).

 

[eastwest101]

With respect we are talking about averaged global temperature changes and not just one isolated weather station's data. Heat island effect has been dealt with by the 4 services that produced the current global warming chart. Oh BTW the nighest temperature rises are in the Arctic. Do you think that was caused by urban heat islands in the Arctic? Well if fact it was but the cause was probably increasing Methane releases from thawing permafrost and under sea stores.

With respect gowatson - you are talking about the average temp changes of these measuring stations. Look where they are:




Apparently a lot of the old unreliable Soviet weather stations were closed or automated/changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union. You will also be familliar with the stories that you hear about the "pissing contests" between the various weather stations in the old USSR that encouraged people reporting colder days that their comrades in the station next door. I guess what I am trying to say here is that an average temp is really the average of a moveable feast of changing data collection points and instruments over time. I think that is the point I was trying to make with that photo of the Arizona weather station.

I am unfamilliar with the Methane story but will look into it.

As a sidebar - I think its a credit to all the AFF's that this thread here has been generally well behaved and tolerant of everyone's opinions. Although I guess a lot of people are just over it all by now.....

 

[drron]

I hope you feel the same about the GST, because only 49% voted for that, so no mandate! Or to put it another way:

Oh dear medhead check your facts on that one.Check out this Crikey story-
Great myths in Australian politics: GST almost cost Howard ‘98 election | Crikey

Consider the facts:
Howard launched the GST package on August 13, 1998.
Leading up to the launch Labor had opened up a pretty consistent lead in Newspoll:

Newspoll June 26-28, 1998 LNP 34 ALP 45
Newspoll July10-12, 1998 LNP 37 ALP 40
Newspoll July 24-26, 1998 LNP 35 ALP 41
Newspoll August 7-9, 1998 LNP 39 ALP 39
​

The first poll after the GST package (August 14-16) had the coalition ahead 44-39! It was the first time the coalition had been ahead since May.
And, unpopular leader? It doesn’t fit the narrative of The Howard Years but Kim Beazley led John Howard as preferred PM through most of 1998 until Howard launched the GST. The poll following the GST launch was the first time Howard had led Beazley since May.

and of course he took this as a policy to an election and let the people decide.

Of course the ALP vote at the last election was 35.5% when it was promised there would be no carbon tax.now there is one the polls are saying the ALP primary vote would be 27%.Certainly no GST kick there.

 

[medhead]

Oh dear medhead check your facts on that one.Check out this Crikey story-Great myths in Australian politics: GST almost cost Howard ‘98 election | Crikeyand of course he took this as a policy to an election and let the people decide.Of course the ALP vote at the last election was 35.5% when it was promised there would be no carbon tax.now there is one the polls are saying the ALP primary vote would be 27%.Certainly no GST kick there.

Crikey! And news poll! ????? Think I'll stick with the facts from the Australian electoral commission. Thanks all the same. Google Australian election result 1998, it is one of the top results.

Of course, don't miss my point. Regardless of issue there is no such thing as a mandate, a highly abused term; all that matters is bums on seats in the parliament. Both issues proves that and hence I am absolutely sick to death with this mandate BS.

And now that I've read the Crikey story, I can only say it is totally irrelevant. I didn't say anything about almost losing the election. Simply noting the fact that 2 part preferred only 49% voted for the coalition and hence even with winning the most seats, there was no mandate for a GST. The majority did not support the GST. That has absolutely noting to do with almost winning or almost losing. Interesting point but irrelevant.

 

[Sprucegoose]

I hope you feel the same about the GST, because only 49% voted for that, so no mandate! Or to put it another way:

Yes but it was an election using the preferential system we use in this country. If that was your point, it was not effectively communicated.It contrasts markedly with the PM stating there will be no Carbon Tax under the government she leads. She will be judged appropriately.

 

[medhead]

Yes but it was an election using the preferential system we use in this country. If that was your point, it was not effectively communicated.It contrasts markedly with the PM stating there will be no Carbon Tax under the government she leads. She will be judged appropriately.

Voting system doesn't change the fact that the GST did not get greater than 50% of the vote. Howard also lied about the GST and then didn't get a mandate for a GST even if he got the majority of seats. If you read the quote from my friend you should be able to understand the point. Gillard has just as much mandate for changing her mind as Howard did according to our electoral system. People who scream about mandates and new elections seem to lack an understanding of our electoral system.