What Carbon

[Moody]

Sorry Moody, but I just HAVE to weigh in here.

BTW, my academic background is Philosophy of Science. Complicated childhood.

I get alarmed, not by global warming, but by the nature of the scientific ¨debate¨ that is involved. In my humble view, this debate has raged out of control. A sane debate involves people comparing facts and in a unified process, perform an unbiased seeking of the most plausible theory or paradigm.

Unfortunately, in this debate, we have, as a scientific community, managed to regress to standards worthy of the Inquisition.

It is a truth that today, any person who refuses to run with the majority in the unwavering support of global warming, etc etc, is immediately subjected to attack and ridicule. This is a most unsavoury and unacceptable scientific position!

To allude to ¨respected scientists¨ is confirmation of this demolition of true scientific values. It suggests that some scientists are ¨not¨ respected.

Scientist are respected if they report the facts accurately and justify the reasons behind their prediction. For example after 9/11 there was confirmation of the global dimming phenomena that has been postulated previously by measuring evaporation rates. So whilst pollutants in the atmosphere exsacerbate the greenhouse effect, they also reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface and so pull the levers the other way. Sounds like a good thing, but scientist are worried that we may inadvertantly cause greater global warming by reducing the amount of particulate pollution in the atmosphere.

Certainly worth more debate than saying sea levels are not rising because a few atolls are silting up.

 

[medhead]

That comes done to the politicalisation of the scientific process. Where any crackpot feels they can shove their nose in and push whatever vested interest they wish. We see this with Lord monkcton (as an example only, I'm sure there are plenty of others on both sides) who enables shock jocks to pretend they have half a clue about the science which then leads to political leaders say things like "climate change is a load of cough." That kills the scientific process.

This is not limited to climate science. We see it with chemtrails, where research involves reading half a dozen websites full of crackpot cough and blocking anyone who dares to challenge it. We also see this with radiation effects, where scientists with anti-nuclear positions can form a committee and then release a report that says the radiation from uranium is 1000 times more harmful that the radiation from non-uranium isotopes.

Scientists are our own worst enemies when it comes to this stuff because our need to (correctly) report findings in non-definite terms creates uncertainty. But that also makes me believe that it is only non-scientists (who have whatever topic as a hobby) who will deal in absolutes on scientific topics.

 

[drron]

Ooohhh - I love a good conspiracy theory. But not as much as scientific proof, so if you could find me just onelink that proves that global sea levels are falling (or even just not rising) I would be much obliged.



Predictions are about what will happen in the future based around models that mostly use past behaviour. If you were keeping up you would see that the IPCC also reports on past and current measurements and trends, which they state are almost certain to prove AGW. They don't claim that this is irrefutable (that sort of dogma is peddled by denialists), but just so we are clear - are you saying the observed measurements that chart global warming and rising sea levels are being faked?

Atmospheric CO2 levels are a FACTOR in climate change. Why do you pretend to be so obtuse? [RQA]



Ditto.



Of course there are, and every year they compare the predictions against the actual behaviour and feed that back into the models. But how many respected scientists reject the theory that humans are changing the global climate? Again- what is your opinion of AGW?



You need to understand the science - not just cherry pick figures. The fact that storm surges deposit material onto the fringes of the atolls does not mean that the inhabitants (if there are any) will live a happy and fulfilled life. In fact if the rising sea levels match the upper predictions then nations like Tuvalu will be forced to live their lives on boats.




Please quote the part of the report you are using in full and then I will look into it, but what are you basing your comment that "2C is extreme alarmism" on? We are nearly half-way there already ...

1.Well here is one fellow who does think there has been a little fiddling.And he is also an IPCC reviewer for 20 years-
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdf

2.I have never said CO2 is not a factor.I just think there is doubt over exactly how much of a factor and the consequences that will have in the future.I just have the feeling because I have acknowledged my right wing leanings you think everything I say is wrong.But granted you are not as bad as medhead who makes up things I am supposed to have said.And I do appreciate that now we are starting to have an argument on the facts.

3.Unfortunately many of the scientists you are relying on do cherry pick as well as in the link I have provided on sea level changes.But I reject your opinion re Tuvalu.I could link to a geologist but he is considered a denier so you would reject that anyway.Also the link I have provided before has found the 3 major islands of Funafuti where most of the population lives have increased in size by 10.1,13.3 and 28.2% over the last 20 years.Those are not insignificant increases.And if in the link you gave on sea level is entirely correct this has been in spite of sea level rise.

4.My figures come from the last IPCC report-the 5th assessment.You can read it too.

Now just as a friendly joust seeing you like to believe ex Conservative ministers from the UK here is another who does say if you argue against the accepted group think you definitely are hounded-
Nigel Lawson: Cool It | Watts Up With That?

And you did ask what I would do to reduce carbon emissions.I thought my suggestion would be howled down but medhead has introduced the subject.Nuclear power.Yes expensive and would take years to commission.Unfortunately will never happen due to the deliberate misinformation by the left wing extremists.

 

[serfty]

... ... And you did ask what I would do to reduce carbon emissions.I thought my suggestion would be howled down but medhead has introduced the subject.Nuclear power.Yes expensive and would take years to commission.Unfortunately will never happen due to the deliberate misinformation by the left wing extremists.

Ironic post ... on nuclear I have no doubt medhead agrees with that as a solution ...

 

[medhead]

Nuclear is capital intensive but no more expensive than solar. The really ironic thing is the carbon tax, and such like, makes nuclear more cost viable against coal. There you have my second reason to support the carbon tax - nuclear power.

As for public acceptance, I think South Australia is a possibility to get a start.

 

[Moody]

1.Well here is one fellow who does think there has been a little fiddling.And he is also an IPCC reviewer for 20 years-
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/southpacific.pdf

And here is an analysis of this retired chemist's critique :- How much is sea level rising?

And if by "IPCC reviewer" you mean he agitates for its dismantling due to his non-belief of AGW ... then I understand your meaning.

 

[drron]

And here is an analysis of this retired chemist's critique :- How much is sea level rising?

And if by "IPCC reviewer" you mean he agitates for its dismantling due to his non-belief of AGW ... then I understand your meaning.

But did you read the comments.The first 2 by neilperth also with the IPCC point to some shenigans with the data.

And here's another from an Australian explaining how if they used the most accurate analysis of the data in 2002 it would take another 50+ years to be sure of the trend-
http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf

 

[Moody]

But did you read the comments.The first 2 by neilperth also with the IPCC point to some shenigans with the data.

And here's another from an Australian explaining how if they used the most accurate analysis of the data in 2002 it would take another 50+ years to be sure of the trend-
http://staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/tuvalu.pdf

I did read the comments - and its good that the website encourages discussion. But the first reference by neilperth leads you to review the works of Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, who is a bit of a crackpot. He believes in the science of dowsing (water divination) and once accused some Australian researchers of cutting down a tree that proved his theory that sea levels were falling rather than rising. He also believes that satellite data is being doctored, but has no proof.

And did you read the executive summary of your new link?

"A cautious estimate of present long-term relative sea level change at Funafuti, which uses all the data, is a rate of rise of 0.8 +/- 1.9 mm/year relative to the land. This indicates that there is about a 68% probability of the rate of rise being between -1.1 and 2.7 mm/year.
A less cautious estimate, based on the rejection of data affected by El Ni~no / Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, is a rate of rise of 1.2 +/- 0.8 mm/year relative to the land. This indicates that there is about a 68% probability of the rate of rise being between 0.4 and 2.0 mm/year."

And yes - they did say that a longer period of time was needed to be more certain of the trend using the equipment to hand (tidal guages). But this paper was written in 2002, and we now have satellites that measure sea levels down to the millimetre. Guess what they say?

 

[Limewood]

I'd still like to know..

how much carbon pollution has been saved by our (carbon) tax and have other polluting nations like China, India and USA done anything much to reduce as well?.

It seems to me the money has gone into the Gov't coffers and we are all using more electricity for instance than before.

I didn't start this post to debate carbon tax just find out where my money went.

 

[medhead]

9.5 percent, apparently. Already mentioned. Otherwise your comments about the carbon tax seem a bit naive. Of course the money went to the government. That is the point. It provides an incentive for businesses to reduce they tax requirement by reducing their emissions. It's a market based pricing mechanism. The money from the carbon tax was never supposed to be used to pay people to reduce emissions - it's a stick not a carrot.

Then there was this on social media, along with a comment about California closing nuclear power plants.

View attachment 31884

 

[drron]

But Moody surely you don't cherry pick.If you use the satellite data for sea rise then surely you use it for temperature.And guess what?

 

[Alanslegal]

Now that the Senate has voted and the tax is going to be repealed. Will people get a carbon tax refund for all existing fares post 1 July?

 

[medhead]

Oh look a peer-reviewed answer for the OP.

Carbon price helped curb emissions, ANU study finds

Australia cut carbon dioxide emissions from its electricity sector by as much as 17 million tonnes because of the carbon price and would have curbed more had industry expected the price to be permanent, according to an Australian National University study.

The report, due to be submitted for peer-reviewed publication, found the two years of the carbon price had a discernible impact on emissions even assuming conservative responses by consumers and businesses.

[SNIP]

The ANU report, which used official market data to the end of June, found the drop in power demand attributed to the carbon price was between 2.5 and 4.2 terawatt-hours per year, or about 1.3 to 2.3 per cent of the National Electricity Market serving about 80 per cent of Australia’s population.

Emissions-intensive brown and black coal-fired power generators cut output, with about 4 gigawatts of capacity taken offline. The emissions intensity of NEM supply dropped between 16 and 28 kilograms of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour of supply, underscoring the role of carbon pricing rather than slumping demand in curbing pollution, the paper said

[SNIP]

“We’d expect the impact of the carbon price would have been larger, perhaps far larger, if there had been an expectation that the carbon price would have continued,” Professor Jotzo said.

[SNIP]

More recent figures, though, show the emissions drop accelerated, with 2013’s 0.8 per cent economy-wide fall the largest annual reduction in the 24 years of monitoring. In the power sector, the industry most directly covered by the carbon price, emissions fell 5 per cent.

[SNIP]

Globally, the government’s reversal on carbon pricing “sends a very negative signal” to other nations weighing up emissions trading schemes, he said. Some of them, such as China, had studied and adopted elements of Australia’s program.

And a lot of those SNIPs remove the political aspects of the story, but I think we can end the BS partisan political postering - the carbon tax was effective and it was good policy.

 

[Limewood]

Thanks medhead, I think now I'll keep paying the carbon tax anyway

Must say I find it hard to believe this tax did anything but line the Govt's coffers.

The odd thing is the general public have no facts or any idea what this tax was all about, all they know is being slugged.

 

[medhead]

Thanks medhead, I think now I'll keep paying the carbon tax anyway

Must say I find it hard to believe this tax did anything but line the Govt's coffers.

The odd thing is the general public have no facts or any idea what this tax was all about, all they know is being slugged.

As I said up thread, it was a tax, of course the money went to government. That is what taxes do, should anyone be surprised. But this tax was also avoidable by lowering emissions. So it acted as a stick to "encourage" certain behaviour. Once people lowered emissions to avoid the tax take the cash to government would reduce. As this peer reviewed report has found the carbon tax did reduce emission/power usage/whatever is the proper term; and it would have been even more effective if people thought it was permanent.

 

[drron]

Of course the carbon tax was effective.
Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter-gone.
Port Henry aluminium smelter-gone in August.
Ford-going.
Holden-going
Toyota-going.

Portland aluminium smelter-long term electricity contract cancelled.Alcoa still looking at reducing smelting world wide.
Tomago aluminium smelter.electricity contract ends 2017.

Sure the carbon tax is only a part of the story but Australia has gone from one of the cheapest electricity tariffs to one of the most expensive.And aluminium smelting is one of the great consumers of electricity.port henry takes 7% of Victoria's supply.portland 10%.Bell Bay takes 25% of Tasmania's supply.

Bell Bay and Portland smelters are asking to be exempted from the RET.At it's AGM last week CSR-50% owner of Tomago-said it was not going to be in the aluminium business long term.
So even without the carbon tax there may very well be large drops in electricity usage in Australia over the next few years.

The carbon tax was introduced to decrease the use of electricity.So cant bleat that industries that use a lot are now closing.

 

[medhead]

Of course the carbon tax was effective.
Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter-gone.
Port Henry aluminium smelter-gone in August.
Ford-going.
Holden-going
Toyota-going.

Portland aluminium smelter-long term electricity contract cancelled.Alcoa still looking at reducing smelting world wide.
Tomago aluminium smelter.electricity contract ends 2017.

Sure the carbon tax is only a part of the story but Australia has gone from one of the cheapest electricity tariffs to one of the most expensive.And aluminium smelting is one of the great consumers of electricity.port henry takes 7% of Victoria's supply.portland 10%.Bell Bay takes 25% of Tasmania's supply.

Bell Bay and Portland smelters are asking to be exempted from the RET.At it's AGM last week CSR-50% owner of Tomago-said it was not going to be in the aluminium business long term.
So even without the carbon tax there may very well be large drops in electricity usage in Australia over the next few years.

The carbon tax was introduced to decrease the use of electricity.So cant bleat that industries that use a lot are now closing.

Do try read the companies statements about this stuff. Not a single one of them lists the carbon tax as a factor. More political posturing on your part. (Already posted in thread)

Then we have the findings that the carbon price contributed only a 7% increase to the retail power price. (Already posted in thread)

As for the comment about being exempted from the RET, it's utter nonsense. The RET is about the change the mix of power sources of the entire Australian electricity market. Individual business can't be exempted from something that requires zero action from them. (Environment.gov.au/climate-change/renewable-energy-target-scheme )

Instead of making up stuff, how about presenting the evidence for your claims?

 

[drron]

Do try read the companies statements about this stuff. Not a single one of them lists the carbon tax as a factor. More political posturing on your part. (Already posted in thread)

Then we have the findings that the carbon price contributed only a 7% increase to the retail power price. (Already posted in thread)

As for the comment about being exempted from the RET, it's utter nonsense. The RET is about the change the mix of power sources of the entire Australian electricity market. Individual business can't be exempted from something that requires zero action from them. (Environment.gov.au/climate-change/renewable-energy-target-scheme )

Instead of making up stuff, how about presenting the evidence for your claims?

Sorry but I am not making it up as they already get a partial exemption-
https://ret.cleanenergyregulator.go...artial-Exemptions/reported-partial-exemptions

 

[RAM]

Carbon of course is a chemical element and not much danger to anyone. Some carbon, known as diamonds, I'd be happy to be polluted with.

Carbon dioxide on the other hand is a naturally occurring gas essential for plant life.

Perhaps the more pertinent question is how much has the world's temperature dropped by after us paying the carbon dioxide tax?

Another question is what caused the onset of the last ice age, and what caused the warming to end it (50,000 - 20,000 years ago)? Not to mention all the other warming and cooling periods evidenced in the geological record. Human carbon dioxide emissions?

Must not forget that the "powers of weevil" tried to get CO2 declared a pollutant but failed. Shame how trees etc die without it (btw - so do we).

Yes, it appears that every previous ice age and subsequent global warming was due to dinosaurs smoking trees to excess - and of course, this time its different!

A little known fact - the carbon tax HASTENED the demise of the Alumina/Aluminum industry in a way not spoken about.

Due to the falling Al price AND the rapidly rising electricity cost in Australia (not dirty brown coal powered China AL plants) the Australian Aluminum industry branched out and joined the National Electricity Market as a SUPPLIER.

They all have (had) long term supply contracts for electricity and with the peaking power price getting so high (and the rains not favouring the Hydros - who use new flows plus pump back to their dams at night at low cost power to let flow down and generate electricity at high price times) the AL companies made greater profits in total by selling off their MWHs instead of producing Al.

The economics with the additional carbon tax impost (for some apparently a very high proportion of the actual electricity cost per ton of Al produced given such favourable supply contracts) was enough to tip the scales into selling off the remaining supply contract (unofficially...) and shutting down in Australia while increasing the production elsewhere. The shut down costs (creative accounting would not be involved at all) totally offsets for some, curiously enough, nearly all the profits from the power sales - who'd guessed?

Why such cheap power contracts? For those of you who are not as pragmatic (cynical?) - Company SXC goes to Premier of XCD state and says we're going to shut down our plant in your state and move to HGF state as we've got a better power offer from them. Premier of XCD with its state owned power generators says we'll match it. No, you need to beat it - so they do. Bit like the price China is paying for the ten's of billons in 30 yr LNG sales - 2 contracts done at 1/5th of year avg price at the time - because Project Finance guys said it would give at 10.8% IIR - go figure?

 

[medhead]

More of the usual rubbish. Please do provide a link to the evidence that people were trying to completely remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Evidence mind you not the scare campaign of some shock jock.