Carbon Tax

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Spruce AGW is very real and we started it. The Methane release in the Arctic will finish it. It is now causing about 12 - 15% of current warming and will quickly accelerate to be the dominant GHG, above CO2. We will see very significant changes in the next 10 years. Where it will end is beyond all the model as it is happening 3-10 x faster than the worst case model predicted 10 years ago. No Carbon Tax nor Direct Action Plan will make a scrap of difference. It is too late.

So lets sell all the coal as quickly we can as we may need the money to spend on some other issues like Nuke powered Desal plants to keep our cities and farms alive.
 
Ah but the first map doesnt include anywhere over 3000 metres or south of 70.And both those RSS maps show the increase in 2010 as less than 1C whereas your GISSI graph is showing a 2C rise in the north.Hmm.
Then there's the HADCRUT3 data-
HadCRUT3_bar.jpg


And guess what-this shows that 1998 was warmer than 2010.
And look at 2010-0.5C higher than the baseline-in agreement with RSS.But more importantly this time includes confidence intervals-ie the 95% confidence interval for 2010 is from 0.4C to 0.6C.So what does this tell you-not that this is directly measured temperatures but a figure that has been corrected.
And of course look at their trend line over the last decade-yes flattening not an increasing rate of change even though this is the time your beloved methane has skyrocketed.
 
Ah but the first map doesnt include anywhere over 3000 metres or south of 70.And both those RSS maps show the increase in 2010 as less than 1C whereas your GISSI graph is showing a 2C rise in the north.Hmm.

The Nasa time / temp scale starts from 1880 and not 1979. I suggest a temp increase of around 1 deg from 1979 to 2010 is very significant. And then this is Tropospheric AIR temperature and not land and sea temperature as Nasa and others use. What is the point is using air temperature when all the others are using land and sea temperature?


Then there's the HADCRUT3 data

Here is the official web site:
Met Office: HadCRUT3: Global surface temperatures

With a graph which seems to be a bit different to the graph you posted:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.png

annual.jpg

HadCRUT3_bar.jpg


And guess what-this shows that 1998 was warmer than 2010.[/QUOTE]

No it does not. What is does show is that the planet is continuing to warm.


And look at 2010-0.5C higher than the baseline-in agreement with RSS.But more importantly this time includes confidence intervals-ie the 95% confidence interval for 2010 is from 0.4C to 0.6C.So what does this tell you-not that this is directly measured temperatures but a figure that has been corrected.
And of course look at their trend line over the last decade-yes flattening not an increasing rate of change even though this is the time your beloved methane has skyrocketed.

My beloved Methane? Where do you get that? I hate the stuff. I like this planet just fine as it is.

Seeing as you posted the HADCRUT3 data, here is what the web site has to say about that the data you posted:

"The annual time series illustrates the increase since the 1850s in global mean temperatures. This increase is much larger than the known sources of error. The warming has occurred in two main phases: 1920-40 and particularly since the mid-1970s.

Research at the Met Office Hadley Centre using state-of-the-art climate models has shown that this behaviour can only adequately be accounted for by a combination of natural and human factors: the latter dominate."

Note the statement "The latter dominate" IE the chart you posted is claimed to be mostly the result of AGW and not natural factors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

I really think when you have to pull Monckton out you've lost the debate.
 
I like the way you dont answer my questions.Why did you select the GISSI data showing 2010 the hottest on record whereas HADCRUT3,RSS and UAH all suggest 1998 was the hottest?
These 4 data sources are acknowledged as reputable centres.
HADCRUT is from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met service which has major input into the IPCC reports.
 
I really think when you have to pull Monckton out you've lost the debate.

Monckton is no threat. He only talks to those who have a vested interest in believing what he say is the truth. It is easy to convince someone that AGW is not real when their income depends on it being so. He seems to dine out very well with his lectures.

I do however agree with him in one aspect. We will not stop what has already started from finishing. There is too much climatic inertia in the system and it is gathering speed as the climate warms and the Arctic Ice cap melts. There are multiple very powerful positive climatic feedback loops in play now. Positive feedback loops we can not stop.

Hansen himself as on occasions said this but has not gone public in a very big way as he seems to suggest we should not give up hope of returning the planet to sub 300 CO2e, which includes Methane and all the other GHGs. I suggest we do not have a snow ball's chance in hell of doing that. Maybe 20 years ago but not now.
 
I like the way you dont answer my questions.Why did you select the GISSI data showing 2010 the hottest on record whereas HADCRUT3,RSS and UAH all suggest 1998 was the hottest?
These 4 data sources are acknowledged as reputable centres.
HADCRUT is from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met service which has major input into the IPCC reports.

What? I posted the latest HADCRUT3 data, which appears to be later than your. Did you actually read my post? 1998 was not hotter that 2010 according to the data that I posted direct from the Met Centre web site. And besides when do trends start with a historic high peak? Had 1999 and the rest of the years following stayed low then I would agree with you. But that clearly did not happen. Sure we had a unusual peak in 1998 but now the non peak averaged temperature is equal to that peak. It did that by continual temperature increases.

I mean you can take that HADCRUT3 data set and select any high peak and claim that there was no AGW until some following year catches up with the first peak. To claim that there was no warming post 1998 is just nonsense and totally outside any conventional analysis of the data points.

So AGW did not stop after 1998. All that happened was 1998 was a very hot year. Well above the average. The year after that was colder than the average. Climate scientists, like stock market analysis use trend line to help them see the tread from + or - spikes in the data. I suggest you do the same and look at the trend because as in the stock market, the trend is your friend. Only a foolish man bets against the trend.
 
Turn business expenses into Business Class! Process $10,000 through pay.com.au to score 20,000 bonus PayRewards Points and join 30k+ savvy business owners enjoying these benefits:

- Pay suppliers who don’t take Amex
- Max out credit card rewards—even on government payments
- Earn & Transfer PayRewards Points to 8+ top airline & hotel partners

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Ah but there is where you are wrong!Is about the next election, and it's pretty obvious whose got the numbers!!

I agree with you. The Carbon Tax will make no difference and it was what Gillard needed to do to stay in power. Like I said before that rapidly melting ice cube stuck in the Arctic Sea basin is not political and does not care a rats about human life on this planet. It just reacts to more ice volume loss during the summer than ice volume gain during the winter:

G14.jpg

Even blind Freddy can see there this trend is going.

Especially as the delayed start of the next solar cycle has finally started:

G18.jpg

You see the start of the last solar cycle was delayed and the suns energy output actually dropped a bit below normal mins (about 0.25 watts or ~0.018%) which is believed to have slowed global warming just a bit. But now the sun is powering up and the rate of global temperature will increase about 0.1 deg as a result. Not so much that we will see or feel it but that very big expanse of thin floating ice in the Arctic will sure feel the extra watts hitting it's surface 24 hours a day during the summer. Good bye Arctic Ice Cap. Hello increased Methane release.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry gowatson but I believe your mind is closed.have a look at the data-3 out of the 4 sets of data show 1998 was warmer than 2010.It doesn't matter how much newer your graphs are the only way it could change is if someone had fiddled with the data.
And where did I say it wasn't warming-I have continually said the rate of warming 1998-2010 is not as great as 1980-1998.I have stressed that because you keep saying that the rate of increase is growing and that simply is wrong.I cant be bothered going back over the thread to quote you.
And again you didn't answer the question i asked.I do read your posts but you do not understand mine.
I'm tired now i have stated my case so goodbye.
 
I'm sorry gowatson but I believe your mind is closed.have a look at the data-3 out of the 4 sets of data show 1998 was warmer than 2010.It doesn't matter how much newer your graphs are the only way it could change is if someone had fiddled with the data.
And where did I say it wasn't warming-I have continually said the rate of warming 1998-2010 is not as great as 1980-1998.I have stressed that because you keep saying that the rate of increase is growing and that simply is wrong.I cant be bothered going back over the thread to quote you.
And again you didn't answer the question i asked.I do read your posts but you do not understand mine.
I'm tired now i have stated my case so goodbye.

Please quote your source as here is the official data:

TopTen.jpg

Only one source has 1998 as warmer than 2010 and then only by 0.02 deg with a error of +-0.09 (according to the WMO) they are basically the same. So not source now shows 1998 as the warmest year. If you look at the solar intensity data curve for 1998 versus 2010 you will see 2010 had less solar heating assistance than 1998 did, so in effect working from a constant solar input, 2010 was hotter than 1998 as 2010 has less solar heating yet achieved the same result as did 1998 which had higher solar heating.

Here is the WMO opinion which says 1998, 2005 and 2010 all tie for the hottest year:
2010 record temperature

Bottom line is the Carbon tax will not make a rats cough of difference to what is happening to our planet. It is too little, too late.

But we do need a leader who will try to find a pathway so as to mitigate away as much as possible of the negative effects of AGW on Australia, our GDP and life style.

Yes I do agree that the rate of warming has slowed a bit over the last decade and one of the causes of that is the funny solar cycle the sun just came out of:

G18.jpg

The drop in the suns energy was very small, about 0.02% but enough to slow the rate of growth a little bit for most of the last decade. Even so it has not stopped the Arctic Ice Cap from losing volume at a record rate and that is the Canary in the Coal mine that will soon melt away in the peak summer sun of say 2015.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Already said where the data is in post 565.See you dont really read my posts.
This is my last post on this.I dont like talking to brick walls.
 
Already said where the data is in post 565.See you dont really read my posts.
This is my last post on this.I dont like talking to brick walls.

Sorry but HADCRUT3, RSS and UAH are not the same thing and you know it. RSS and UAH are mid troposphere satellite temperature data records. What do they show? It is getting hotter:
File:Satellite Temperatures.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

HADCRUT3, NOAA, NASA and the Japanese data Nasa and the WMO referenced are ground and sea temperature based readings from weather stations. You know as well as I do that you can not directly compare RSS and UAH mid troposphere satellite data to the ground and sea based measurements.

I have no agenda other than understand what is happening to our planet. I do not give a rats cough about the Carbon Tax or politics. I do however suspect that is where we really differ as you seem to have an agenda to support. If I got that wrong then I do apologize.

So to clear the air:

Do you believe the planet is warming due to increased levels of GHGs in the atmosphere?

Do you believe that we humans directly and indirectly are the main causes of the increased amounts of GHG in the atmosphere?
 
Copy and paste from another website, but still worthy of a look.

The following address by Dr David Evans is an excellent short explanation (for those who are always asking for references but can't be bothered taking the time to look them up and spend the time reading them) of how we are being misled by the propaganda of the climate change "warmists".

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

He says.........

"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians."
Yeah, l think he has the right credentials for this....


David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It’s a Scam « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

Dr David Evans’ address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally, Perth Australia, 23 March 2011.​
Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.
Let’s set a few things straight. The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, buthow much.
Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

More from the link above.
 
I think there is still some debate in the scientific community as to whether the extra water vapour causes a positive or negative feedback cycle. Most climate models assume positive feedback, but I am not sure the issue is truly settled.
 
Lots of graphs but no one seems to have mentioned this story (there was also another one in the SMH about the KLM biofuel program but I can't find it)

Fund biofuel from carbon tax says Qantas | The Australian

One of the companies being studied by Qantas, Solena, has a deal with British Airways to build a plant in London to convert urban rubbish to biofuel, due to come on line in 2014. It will convert up to 500,000 tonnes of waste a year into 73 million litres of green jet fuel -- enough to power 2 per cent of BA's Heathrow fleet.
Mr Joyce said Qantas expected to decide relatively soon on whether it was comfortable investing in a proposal to build a similar $300m plant in Australia .
This would involve a contract committing the airline to buy the fuel, which it is estimated can be produced at between $US70 ($65) to $US80 a barrel.
A practical example of what a carbon tax does, it makes Qantas look at invest $300 mil in biofuel. Given the fuel cost quoted and if I recall correctly, the current fuel cost of $100 to $140 per barrel, there is even a substantial saving to be had of the fuel.

The other thing I wanted to share was an analysis of the Abbott alternative. I haven't read it all and I'm about to get on a plane so I'll not make any comment about this analysis.

A close look at Abbott's Direct Action plan - The Drum Opinion - There's been precious little focus on the Opposition's carbon policy, which it calls 'Direct Action'. How effective would it be? (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


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.

Why? That guy thinks it is a Alien conspiracy.
 
Re: Carbon TSo the rest of the world ax

Have some questions about this carbon tax...

The rest of the worlds big polluters like China, India and USA etc. will have a carbon tax too?.

By Australia having this carbon tax will it really make much difference?.

If Australia exports less coal, the world will not buy the coal from elsewhere?.

Having this carbon tax will make people use less electricity from coal powered stations?.

I wonder why I can't find one person who I know that understands what this carbon tax is about?.

What is the cost of the admin. of this carbon tax?.

Can we trust governments to not increase it or change it?.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Back
Top