A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form. Here’s the entire slide show online from Philip R. Wood in Australia given July 14th.
Here’s the slide show link – it may take a bit to load on your PC as it is large.
While there are some good points in the presentation, there are a couple of slides that are questionable due to them not showing the most current data, such as the UAH satellite plot taken from my blog in April. The most recent one is here:
I order online food from Tesco. They now have an extra line of enviro-spam in certain product descriptions that informs me how much of a carbonfootprint this food produces. It’s only on a few items, such a oats, potatoes and milk, the entire thing is quite bizarre and utterly pointless, no-one can do anything at all with this information, it’s sort of fluent arglegargleblopf.
Prior to PM Gillard being elected she was adamant there would be NO carbon tax, but no sooner was she in power she decides to have a change of heart and introduce this carbon tax.
What people should be asking is, what was it that made her have a complete about turn; did she see the ‘science’ and think WOW, we are in the sh*t!! As an intelligent woman, she must have questioned what she was told initially and i assume must have read and understood what was presented to her, so if it convinced her so strongly, then surely she should present the people with the same evidence she saw, which completely changed her attitude to the implimentation of the carbon tax, so in turn convince the public that she now governs.
If it provided her the need to do a very sudden and abrubt U turn, then i think the people need to see what it was that brought that decision into being.
It would be the right and proper thing to do in a open, decent and transparent democracy.
So ALL you Australians down there demand to see the evidence she saw which convinced her to take in this wonderful new carbon tax… Ask, ASK… ASK..!!!
Bulldust: It might be sooner than you think…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/
To Fit Nick; the reason for Gillard’s change is simple – it’s called ‘The Greens’. They hold the balance of power in Australia, and Gillard has to dance to their tune if she is to stay in power as Prime Minister. They are determined that they know what is best for us, and will go all the way with eco-fascism to get what they want.
Derek, the 3% is correct. According to the IPCC, natural CO2 production is about 210.2 billion metric tons while man produces a measly 7.2 billion metric tons (3.4% of natural, 3.3 % of total). The AGW proponents claim that the natural CO2 production is perfectly in balance with carbon sinks even though natural sources can vary by several percent from year to year (volcanic eruptions being just one example).
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/ghg_carbon_cycle-large.gif
I find a lot of emotions in the presentation. For instance asking for more CO2 emissions is just an emotional attack, not really backed up by science. The same applies to the ‘Cruelia’ joke or the projected China emissions. Sorry, nobody knows the future, neither in climate nor in industry.
I find the whole debate about whether CO2 is or isn’t pollutant funny. Sure enough, if production of something is too high and it upsets you, you call it a pollutant whatever it is. We have ozone pollution in cities however useful that gas is in the ionosphere, for instance. Battle of the “pollutant” sticker is yet again emotional one, not scientific one.
The argument ‘they never explain how or why’ is also completely wrong. I’ve heard way too many such explanations or predictions to agree that they never explain. I wish they didn’t, it wouldn’t be so much work to debunk all that nonsense … but the argument is wrong.
“Is global warming reducing ice caps … NO!” Well, arctic ice cap clearly is declining. And you can’t save it by statement that Al Gore was wrong about it – it may not be gone but it still is declining and the variability after 2007 is clearly under statistical significance and does not suggest it’s recovering.
I think there are lots of good points in that presentations but some are IMO just wrong or can be classified as hits under belt.
Derek Sorensen says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Or is the 3% figure misleading/irrelevant?
and
James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Derek, the 3% is probably accurate as best as can be determined. However, the argument is the 3% accumulates. That stated, just because we’ve gone from 280ppm to 390 ppm doesn’t mean we(humans) are the source. In spite of what people would have you believe, the 280 ppm is not a constant, not now, nor was it ever.
James and Derek, the next slide (about the carbon cycle) shows reality: some 7 GtC is emitted by humans but only 4 GtC is removed by oceans and vegetation, that is the difference between natural sources and natural sinks. Thus it is highly misleading to say that human production is only 3% of natural production, because there are only few human sinks (by reforestation), while the natural sinks are higher than the natural production, if counted over a full seasonal cycle. Thus the net natural production is negative (at least over the past 60 years of accurate measurements).
There is little doubt that humans are responsible for almost all of the recent increase of CO2. Temperature only had a small contribution.
Historical CO2 levels from ice cores are quite clear on this: over the past near million years (and probably beyond), the influence of temperature was about 8 ppmv/°C, with CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppmv. Nowadays we are over 390 ppmv…
For the rest a very nice show, but this one slide should be amended, as it is an easy target for the warmistas…
If food labels listed ingredients based on the periodic table, it would probably look something like this:
O:
C:
H:
Water is the primary ingredient in many foods (rice and other grains are an exception, as are the foods that contain them as main components), followed by carbon. Hence, carbon would almost always be first or second on the list (in beverages it would probably be third in abundance).
So is this what Gillard’s refering to when calling it “carbon pollution”?
How absurd. My gosh, she must have been schooled without benefit of critical or logical thought.
Overall a good presentation except for slide 7. The claim “greenhouse gases make Planet Earth liveable (+14C current average global temperature, rather than -19C otherwise)” is used by almost all warmists and regrettably by some sceptics, but is 50% wrong. In fact the errors associated with this statement could be seen as foundation for much of AGW alarmism.
When a patch of soil on the surface of Earth is compared to the surface of the Moon, it can be seen that our atmosphere keeps Earth’s surface warmer during hours of darkness and COOLER during the sunlit hours than the surface of the Moon. Saying that “on average” our atmosphere and the gasses within it keep the surface of the earth 33C warmer than it would otherwise be leads to fundamental errors in understanding energy flows in our atmosphere.
The input of energy to Earths surface is primarily through shortwave solar radiation. The exit of energy from the earths surface is primarily through conduction, convection, evaporation and the phase change of water molecules. It is only the exit of energy from the upper troposphere (above most CO2) that is dominated by radiative processes. During sunlit hours the Earths surface is cooler than the surface of the Moon due to our atmosphere regardless of “greenhouse gasses” within it.
What nobody has picked up on PM Gillard’s carbon (dioxide) tax, is the commitment to the UN Green Climate Fund of 10% of any carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. This agreement was signed by Minister Combet ( Climate Change) at Cancun 2010. It has to be ratified at COP17 Durban December 2011, hence the push to get a carbon tax in legislation as soon as possible.
A Youtube video h/t WakeUp2theLies:-
PM Gillard not answering the question on Green Climate Fund – Question Time.
The video includes at the end the pre-election statements by Ms Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan – “I will not have a carbon tax in my term of office” or similar words
The transcript of the “event” in the Parliament is also available in the Australian Federal Parliament Hansard 1/3/2011 , around 2:28pm.
Weather extremes in Australia are quite normal, and have been recorded since Europeans settled there, since long before “carbon” taxes, cap-and-trade and any ETS were a gleam in the eyes of money-hungry politicians. Look up A Chronological Listing of Early Weather Events (9.4 MB PDF file), by James A. Marusek and search for “Australia” in that document, e. g.:
“Derek Sorensen says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Question re: slide 12.
Or is the 3% figure misleading/irrelevant?”
This 3% represents the extra amount that humans put in each year at the present time. So it has accumulated to about 40% higher now than it was in 1750. About half of what we put in stays in the air and about half goes into photosynthesis and into the ocean.
“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm
No one knows the net contribution of anything, much less of mankind.”
I agree there is much that we do not know. However all of the fossil fuels that have been burned since 1750 has caused a lot of CO2 to be emitted and that just does not disappear. It has to show up somewhere. I have no problem accepting that the net effect of humans has been to cause CO2 to go up by 40% since 1750. The real question is whether or not this has caused CAGW. I am convinced the answer to that is NO!
To Malcom Miller @ur momisugly 4.06pm
Yes, i completely agree with you, but she cannot admit to that as such, that was my whole point.
The media, or a single peson has to capture her in a straight question, face to face, and ask her.. What evidence made you have such a sudden and abrupt change of heart on your promise, on the implementation of this carbon tax? Show me the very same evidence that persuaded you ….
If she wants the Australian people to believe in this policy she will have to give you a straight answer, otherwise it will show itself for what it is… a complete sham! She can’t just come back with … ‘The concensus off the science says so”
The beauty of your case is she was adamant before the election and then a complete U-Turn after, so she was persuaded by something? So that moment has to be grasped now while it is still hot, otherwise Australia like us in the UK will slowly have to pay more and more into the bottomless pit of ‘Greening’ and saving the Planet from AGW .
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 26, 2011 at 4:26 pm
James and Derek, the next slide (about the carbon cycle) shows reality: some 7 GtC is emitted by humans but only 4 GtC is removed by oceans and vegetation, that is the difference between natural sources and natural sinks. Thus it is highly misleading to say that human production is only 3% of natural production, because there are only few human sinks (by reforestation), while the natural sinks are higher than the natural production, if counted over a full seasonal cycle. Thus the net natural production is negative (at least over the past 60 years of accurate measurements).
There is little doubt that humans are responsible for almost all of the recent increase of CO2. Temperature only had a small contribution.
Historical CO2 levels from ice cores are quite clear on this: over the past near million years (and probably beyond), the influence of temperature was about 8 ppmv/°C, with CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppmv. Nowadays we are over 390 ppmv…
==================================================================
Ferdinand, I don’t mean to quibble, but, ……..
I don’t believe it can be shown there are any accurate measurements of sinks vs emitters. We don’t know how much the oceans are emitting and sinking. And we don’t know all of the sinks and emitters. It is impossible to state with any certitude how much is removed by oceans and vegetation in a net sum vs how much they are also emitting.(Dying and dead vegetation, ocean out-gassing.) Nor, have we summed the net effect of the fauna of this earth. Further, has anyone accurately shown the emissions of geo-thermal activity? I sincerely doubt it because we are discovering more on a seemingly daily basis underwater. The net natural production can’t possibly consistently negative, else, before mankind CO2 would have been zero. If it were zero, then no life. I think it is highly misleading to portray what we believe to have occurred as to be anything more than a guess. And, by my estimation, an unlikely event.
Further, tell me how you believe ice cores have any veracity in them at all? Trapped air? We don’t know old the molecular make-up of that particular piece of air was before it was frozen in time. Further, it is known today, that you can take a CO2 measurement and it varies by 100s of ppm depending upon the location. How is it that the samples we took from the ice cores didn’t show that variation? Mankind again? Perhaps, perhaps not. The fact is, from a couple of ice cores we don’t know jack and to accept them as truth probably isn’t prudent until more can be known and demonstrated.
Nor is ice a static, motionless, object. But then even the land the ice was on, the antarctic, isn’t static and motionless. As far as ice cores from the arctic……. nope, not even likely to be accurate not to time nor place.
Werner Brozek says:
July 26, 2011 at 5:28 pm
“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm
No one knows the net contribution of anything, much less of mankind.”
=================================================================
I have no problem accepting that the net effect of humans has been to cause CO2 to go up by 40% since 1750. The real question is whether or not this has caused CAGW. I am convinced the answer to that is NO!
==========================================================
Sure, it shows up somewhere, and, I don’t state that we are not the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2, I’m stating that we don’t know that. I’m stating we can’t demonstrate it.
Without the assumption that mankind is the cause of the increased atmospheric CO2, can anyone show or demonstrate what the net effect of any part of the rest of variables to this equation? The flora and fauna? The elements? I’ve never once seen a reasonable estimation of any without the assumption that mankind caused the increase.
I know you are, but what am I?
We all know that the carbon tax is a croc. Here is the cake to prove it! You MUST click this link..
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_baking_cost_extra_with_the_carbon_tax/
Adding 3% every year since 1980 suggests that the 2009 CO2 content of the atmosphere should be 796 ppm instead of the measured 382. So there must be a very effective sink somewhere that took an additional 458 ppm out of the atmosphere. That is 90% of the supposed human contribution. Add 100% of the other 97% which is natural (non-anthropogenic) CO2 to get 97%+2.7% which is 99.7%. So they are worried about 0.3% discrepancy? Surely they can’t measure the two components that accurately.
I think I misplaced a decimal in that compound 3% calculation. I redid it using Mauna Loa PPMV from 1960 (317ppm) to 2010 (384ppm), an increase of 67ppm. A 3% increase every year would have produced a 2010 measurement of 1349ppm. So 67(actual)/715(predicted) =.094%. That’s the percent increase since 1960, versus 1349ppm which would be the predicted 4.26% anthropogenic contribution (3% compounded.) 99.9% of the predicted anthropogenic increase has disappeared into the carbon sink (assuming exactly 100% of the natural increase is precisely balanced by the preexisting carbon sink.)
So what unknown is still unknown? Could it be that the actual percentage of anthropogenic contribution is far below 3% or is the carbon sink so effective that only a tiny increase is possible?
“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“I’m stating we can’t demonstrate it. Without the assumption that mankind is the cause of the increased atmospheric CO2, can anyone show or demonstrate what the net effect of any part of the rest of variables to this equation?”
Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, I think it is more than an assumption that we put a lot of CO2 into the air that would otherwise not be there. We can start with the basic equation for the complete combustion of gasoline for a start:
2C8H18 + 25O2 —> 16CO2 + 18H2O. (If you want others for coal or methane, I could provide them too.) The point is, we have a pretty good idea how much hydrocarbons we burn each year and how much extra CO2 we humans are responsible for. But it seems as if only half can be accounted for in the atmosphere.
See the following where the quote is made: “According to the study, the Earth has continued to absorb more than half of the carbon dioxide pumped out by humans over the last 160 years.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html
In related news:
“Deputy Nationals leader Nigel Scullion won the celebrity cake-making challenge with a cake showing Prime Minister Julia Gillard seemingly being eaten by a crocodile.”
Senator Scullion said the cake wasn’t chauvinistic. “The croc wasn’t eating Julia – she was just taking her new pet, Porosus Carbontaxiae, for a walk,” he said.
Well, cancel my calculations. It’s not my night for doing so. The 3% number is the fraction of CO2 emitted annually, not a 3% increase from the previous level. I’ll have go find the gigaton figures and recalculate.
What we do know, is how CO2 introduced into atmosphere in a sealed vessel effects the absoprtion of heat in that vessel.
Period.
We do not know how this transfers to the open atmosphere or how the CO2 effect interacts with the much larger H2O effect.
Very little experimentation or data gathering on these subjecst has been attempted.
Most of what has been done has been done by Dr. Roy Spencer using satelite data.
His work suggests that the IPCC are quite misguided and that CO2 has little impact on the temperature of the atmosphere.
Ancient records show that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was once many thousands of ppm higher than the levels currently experienced.
If water vapor provided a positive feedback then there would have been a runaway greenhouse world many millions of years ago and there would be no life on earth today of any sort.
“Wendy says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:11 pm”
Its worse than that Wendy, I have “debated” with people here in the “lucky” country who firmly believe the Maunder and Dalton minima were caused by this carbon (CO2) pollution. Gillard recently suggested that the Australian MSM should not print “crap”, seems Gillard could do with a dose of her own advice. Australia is asleep at the wheel.