Carbon Tax

[Smackbum]

Oh - lighten up Smackbum

I think we can all have a good debate and still find time for the humorous side.

Besides- even if you don't find the joke a dig at Julia - I'm sure even she feels that way sometimes

True - but if I want to hear bigoted, irrational and "opinion for sale" type arguments I can listen to the shock-jocks or pick up any Murdoch rag. I would much prefer to have a proper debate on this forum, but standards are slipping.

But it's a global phenomena on this global issue of climate change - just ask Malcolm Turnbull.

 

[connieguy]

True - but if I want to hear bigoted, irrational and "opinion for sale" type arguments I can listen to the shock-jocks or pick up any Murdoch rag. I would much prefer to have a proper debate on this forum, but standards are slipping.

But it's a global phenomena on this global issue of climate change - just ask Malcolm Turnbull.

Listen to him here:
Impassioned Turnbull defends climate change science - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[dfcatch]

True - but if I want to hear bigoted, irrational and "opinion for sale" type arguments I can listen to the shock-jocks or pick up any Murdoch rag. I would much prefer to have a proper debate on this forum, but standards are slipping.

But it's a global phenomena on this global issue of climate change - just ask Malcolm Turnbull.

Really? I mean really?

Why is it all those on bemoaning the "standards" of the debate seem to attack the "shock jocks" and the "Murdoch" press for any opinion or view that someone expresses in a contrary way.

Personally - whether I agree with everyone on here or not on every particular topic is not something that bothers me. I'm here, and always interested in others opinions because there is a lot of interesting collective knowledge over a vast range of areas (including 'hot topics'). Even on this thread, whilst I strongly disagree with some conclusions and views of Gowatson and Medhead - I respect their views, opinions, and clear knowledge from which I have learnt new information. But I don't presume for a moment that the intelligent people who inhabit this forum are incapable of forming their own views and opinions.

For the record - I have never listened to Jones et al (might be due to not living in NSW), so I don't know nor care for his opinions. And as much as I read Bolt from time to time, I read Jill Singer's far left view of the world just as often (when she does actually publish an opinion piece). I take all that I read with a grain of salt, and absorb information from multiple sources before forming my views on various matters. I imagine many others here are the same - possibly even yourself.

An interesting thought - instead of attacking the jocks and Murdoch papers (and assuming that all those following are simply subservient sheep doing what they're told) - perhaps consider that those who listen to Jones et al, and choose to spend their money reading Murdoch papers rather than Fairfax do so out of choice, perhaps they do so because they agree with some of the views reported, perhaps they consider the ABC and Fairfax press to be biased in the other direction and that people such as yourself are the ones who are brainwashed and simply trotting out "bigoted, irrational and "opinion for sale" type arguments".

Not accusing you of doing so - just playing devil's advocate and throwing the argument back around

Worth a thought....

 

[connieguy]

...Not accusing you of doing so - just playing devil's advocate and throwing the argument back around ...

Turnbull's comments are spot on:

"The question of whether or to what extent human activities are causing global warming is not a matter of ideology, let alone of belief," he said.
"The issue is simply one of risk management."

The question is can either the Gillard Carbon Tax or the Abbott Direct Action Plan do anything worthwhile to slow down what has been set into place.

Had we started when Kyoto was signed, maybe. Now I would suggest we need to spend money to limit the damage to our GDP that will result when the Arctic Ice Cap melts. There is not much left and based on the yearly loss of ice mass, it will not take more than a few years until in the peak summer month of Sept, there will not be a lot of ice left.



Then with no summer ice to keep the Arctic Sea cold, the Methane release will increase from the then unfrozen Methane in the permafrost and in the sea bed stores.


We need to spend money to understand how this event will effect Australia and how we can mitigate the worst effects.

So Turnbull is right, it is now about risk management.

 

[Smackbum]

An interesting thought - instead of attacking the jocks and Murdoch papers (and assuming that all those following are simply subservient sheep doing what they're told) - perhaps consider that those who listen to Jones et al, and choose to spend their money reading Murdoch papers rather than Fairfax do so out of choice, perhaps they do so because they agree with some of the views reported, perhaps they consider the ABC and Fairfax press to be biased in the other direction and that people such as yourself are the ones who are brainwashed and simply trotting out "bigoted, irrational and "opinion for sale" type arguments".

Not accusing you of doing so - just playing devil's advocate and throwing the argument back around

Worth a thought....

So when you read gowatson's last post about shrinking ice caps and the possible causes and effects, and then contrast that with the "Juliar" picture - do you see both of them as contributing equally to the debate? I don't, and I have very little time for that sort of rubbish or the people who rely upon it to make their point.


And why do people on the right generally take the stance that :-

1. The earth is not warming - please see these selective stats and pictures of how hot it was when Jesus was around.
2. OK - that was a lie, the earth is warming but it has nothing to do with us.
3. OK - that was a lie as well, but Australia is too small to make a difference - get the Chinese to do it.
4. Ohmygod! The socialists are trying to destroy our economy because ... because ... they are really dirty commies!

It is sort of fun arguing climate deny'ers through these four stages of acceptance, but the result is the same - they just don't care. It was they same with "Children Overboard". After all the lies, deception and gagging of the navy during the election campaign, the genie finally popped out of the bottle a couple of days before the election. "That will have to hurt the coalition", I naively thought. In fact it made not one iota of difference to the election outcome, because the majority of Australians didn't give a rats cough about desperate refugees arriving by boat. Portraying them as devil's spawn that would sacrifice their own children was simply a justification exercise, and exposing that lie didn't change a single vote.

So it is with climate change - "our side of politics does not believe in it so neither do I". Great way to approach life.

 

[Sprucegoose]

i think the graphs and other presentations are a total waste of time. you either believe or you dont. And if you believe you need to decide how much you are prepared to pay for the 'risk of doing nothing', Ala Y2K computer bug and all the other sensationalist rubbish around the place.

Quite frankly the PM didnt even get out of the starting blocks, she has been mowed down as she has no credibility. People dont want to even hear her anymore, as opposed to hearing the arguement and then rejecting it or otherwise, and choosing a course of action.

Why has this happened?

It is simple. She said drop it Kev, then she dropped Kev, she said no and then said come and dance with the Greens. No authenticicity whatsoever and you are asking people to pay more and some to give up their jobs and become less internationally competitive because of a self imposed tax.


If renewables were viable for base load power, we would have them in place now.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[dfcatch]

So when you read gowatson's last post about shrinking ice caps and the possible causes and effects, and then contrast that with the "Juliar" picture - do you see both of them as contributing equally to the debate? I don't, and I have very little time for that sort of rubbish or the people who rely upon it to make their point.


And why do people on the right generally take the stance that :-

1. The earth is not warming - please see these selective stats and pictures of how hot it was when Jesus was around.
2. OK - that was a lie, the earth is warming but it has nothing to do with us.
3. OK - that was a lie as well, but Australia is too small to make a difference - get the Chinese to do it.
4. Ohmygod! The socialists are trying to destroy our economy because ... because ... they are really dirty commies!

It is sort of fun arguing climate deny'ers through these four stages of acceptance, but the result is the same - they just don't care. It was they same with "Children Overboard". After all the lies, deception and gagging of the navy during the election campaign, the genie finally popped out of the bottle a couple of days before the election. "That will have to hurt the coalition", I naively thought. In fact it made not one iota of difference to the election outcome, because the majority of Australians didn't give a rats cough about desperate refugees arriving by boat. Portraying them as devil's spawn that would sacrifice their own children was simply a justification exercise, and exposing that lie didn't change a single vote.

So it is with climate change - "our side of politics does not believe in it so neither do I". Great way to approach life.

You've just answered your own question with your "children overboard" example.

You are a real life "exhibit A" example of the type of person who views every issue through the "party-political-prism". You are perpetrating the exact thing which you complain about others doing.

As your children overboard example aptly demonstrates - the only people who cared about any "lie" or about "children overboard" in general - were those who were hoping that something would hurt the coalition and assist the ALP in winning the 2001 election. ie. those with a party-political viewpoint (which IMHO is always approximately 40% of the population on any given issue on each side of the pendulum). The election clearly demonstrated that the majority of the population didn't care as much about the issue as ALP supporters hoped they would.

That your position and view differed from the majority of Australians (as you state above) begs the question... Who is the one out of step with the democratic majority? Is the "majority of Australians" or could it be you..??

If your view is the one out of step - then you can't go and attack the "majority of Australians". Nor do you have to change your view. That's democracy - it's how it works.

And besides - as a person who's family has voted for both sides of politics in fairly even election numbers - I've not always been in step with the majority either - but I accept it.

And I think Howard/Abbott and others on the conservative side have been called far worse than "Juliar"....


There are so many proverbs that come to mind - most involving the words glass and jaw or houses


PS. I agree with your point about the Juliar picture vs Gowatson graphs. But I still think that there is plenty of room for some light humour mixed into the debate. I'm sure both Gillard and Abbott can take it

 

[connieguy]

If renewables were viable for base load power, we would have them in place now. Here endeth the lesson.

With respect the melting Arctic Ice cap can't read. It just reacts to increased air and sea temperatures. Likewise the melting permafrost, releasing a GHG 25 times as powerful as CO2 continues it's increased rate of release. BTW Methane is currently ~2 pp, or 2,000 ppb. At 25 times the potency of CO2 it is, in terms of CO2 at 50 ppm. The current level of CO2 is 395 ppm with historic peaks over the last 450,000 years at 280 ppm. Methane, over the last 450,000 years was around 500 ppb and is now 2,000 ppb. It is actually Methane which has gone up like a rocket ~400% times versus CO2 at ~50%. Combined together the CO2e equivalent is over 450 ppm TODAY. If over the next few years say by 2015, the Arctic Ice Cap does melt out in summer, CO2 goes up 8 ppm and Methane goes up 4 ppm, the effective level will then be around 550 ppm CO2e.

This has nothing to do with politics or if you refuse to believe the measured data before your eyes. It is happening and no Carbon Tax or Direct Action Plan will stop it. We need to shift gears and direction and start to work out how to maintain our GDP and life styles in a very rapidly warming world. The only sane person I see in Australian politics who seems to be able to see the future is Malcolm Turnbull.

Oh BTW we can burn all the coal we want as soon the Arctic Methane release will become the major driver heating up the planet.

 

[drron]

Re the melting Arctic Ice cap.Scientific measurements do not support the conclusions of gowatson-

Now the black line is for the year 2007.So there was a greater arctic sea ice extent in 2008,2009,2010 than 2007.
If you do read from the various University sites and NASa about the measurements you would realise that it is easy to underestimate the ice in summer depending on things such as the angle of the satellite,smoothness or roughness of the ice surface etc.
Also look at ice formation in winter-

Sorry I couldn't enlarge this one but the purple and blue lines showing the largest percentage ice formation in Nov/Dec are 2007/08.
you can find it here-
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/

 

[connieguy]

Re the melting Arctic Ice cap.Scientific measurements do not support the conclusions of gowatson-

1st point:
They are not my conclusions. What I posted is the work of others much more qualified than me to do this work.


2nd point:
What you posted is Arctic Sea Ice extent, which is the area of floating sea ice which has at least a 15% sea ice area content or at most a 85% sea water area content.

Here is a multi year Arctic Sea Ice Area chart. Here the water area between floating ice floes has been subtracted, so this chart is in equivalent solid floating sea ice area, which you will observe has dropping from ~5.6million km^2 in summer 1979 to ~3million km^2 from summer 2007 and beyond. This summer, 2011, is predicted to break the 2007 Arctic Sea Ice Area summer min record.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png


3rd point:
Arctic Sea Ice extent (a 2 dimensional number) is not Arctic Sea Ice volume (a 3 dimensional number). SO while the area is dropping, the thickness is also dropping and hence the rapidly declining Arctic Sea Ice Volume, this is where the money or ability to keep the Arctic sea and land area frozen is.


As I have said before, these are not my numbers, charts or conclusions. They are what are happening right now and every year the loss of Arctic Sea Ice volume is increasing.



Why? Because the measured temperatures across almost all the planet are increasing and increasing the fastest in the Arctic.



Bottom line is even if we stopped emitting ALL CO2 now, we can not stop the Arctic Ice Cap melting and as a result increasing the level of Methane in the air. It has already started.




There is no way to put the Genie of coal based power back in the bottle as Methane is now increasing more rapidly, in terms of equivalent GHG heating effect, than CO2 is.

So I do agree with you that the Gillard Carbon Tax is a waste of money but for reasons other than yours.

 

[drron]

My graphs are also from people far more qualified than me.
They use arctic sea ice extent because it is less likely to underestimate sea ice in summer than other measurements.
i'm sorry your graph is unreadable so i really cant see what is being measured.

PS-as I have pointed out before your temperature graph does not prove increased warming.It is a demonstration of how much the average temperature is above baseline.

 

[connieguy]

My graphs are also from people far more qualified than me.
They use arctic sea ice extent because it is less likely to underestimate sea ice in summer than other measurements.
i'm sorry your graph is unreadable so i really cant see what is being measured.

This forum's upload facility shrinks images too small. What is being measured is Cubic Volume of floating arctic sea ice in units of 1,000 km^3, or a block of ice 1 km wide, 1 km high and 1,000 km long.

Here is the link to the PIOMAS rate of change chart:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...e_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png

 

[Oneworldplus2]

This forum's upload facility shrinks images too small.

Save the file as a jpg and you should be good gowatson

View attachment 3166

 

[connieguy]

My graphs are also from people far more qualified than me.
They use arctic sea ice extent because it is less likely to underestimate sea ice in summer than other measurements.
i'm sorry your graph is unreadable so i really cant see what is being measured.

PS-as I have pointed out before your temperature graph does not prove increased warming.It is a demonstration of how much the average temperature is above baseline.

It is not my chart. You can access the data here:
Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

As for not proving warming is occurring where does that come from because to me this is a very clear chart:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/509796main_GISS_annual_temperature_anomalies.gif

 

[connieguy]

Save the file as a jpg and you should be good gowatson

Thanks.

 

[drron]

Yes and the GISSI database is one of 4 accepted by the experts and the only one showing 2010 is the hottest year ever.So i went to the other sources.here is a graph from RSS showing the increase in temperature from 1979 to 2010-

And note the darker orange in your beloved Arctic below 82.5 north is 0.5-0.6C.Not nearly as dramatic is it?

 

[connieguy]

Here is the monthly trend data chart:

 

[connieguy]

Yes and the GISSI database is one of 4 accepted by the experts and the only one showing 2010 is the hottest year ever.So i went to the other sources.here is a graph from RSS showing the increase in temperature from 1979 to 2010-


And note the darker orange in your beloved Arctic below 82.5 north is 0.5-0.6C.Not nearly as dramatic is it?

It is not my beloved Arctic. I really do wish what was happening was not happening. I merely report what some may not know. You got a link to what you posted so I can take a look at how that graph was created?

You did see the temperature graph with 4 different and independent sources?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/n...justed_annual_temperature_anomalies_final.gif

 

[Sprucegoose]

I really think you lot have well and truly lost everyone with you graphs and particular interpretations, we need to get Lord Monckton out here for a review.

 

[connieguy]

Found your chart. Well several charts in fact. There are here:
RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Description

and are based on satellite measurement of air temperature at various altitudes. They do not include ground nor sea temperatures as the Nasa data does.

Seems the chart you posted is the 2nd in a series from temperature at mid level altitudes (TMT sensor) and not from the lower surface band using the TLT sensor. I also note these are atmospheric temperature changes and not surface and sea temperature as Nasa and other use and only since 1979 and do not go back as far as the Nasa and weather bureau data records which go back to 1880.<br>

Here is the lower TLT sensor data, closer to the ground, which does show increased Arctic heating in just the air above the arctic. Land and water temperature rise was as Nasa has shown.


Wonder what caused the higher level of heating in the Arctic troposphere air? Just maybe increased Methane from unfreezing permafrost and under sea stores which will get worst as the ice cube floating in the Arctic Sea melts?