Story submitted by Richard Abbott
At the last Australian federal election the incumbent government lead by prime minister Julia Gillard’s Labor party stood with a “no carbon tax policy”. To form a minority Labor party government three elected independent members sided with Labor and to ensure upper house control of legislation change the Greens offered their solidarity provided a carbon tax was introduced.
Currently Australian parliament is debating the carbon tax bill, which has emerged with a rather bitter and poisonous pill. The carbon tax legislation’s emission right is to be treated as conventional property rights, therefore making it almost impossible to repeal once enacted, because of the enormous compensation that the Australian government of the day would be required to pay to the 500 polluting companies being forced to purchase carbon emissions permit credits.
Sadly Labor accepts the Gore camp theory and leaves no chance for repeal when global climate change is found not to be caused by industrial man. The poisonous pill added was to prevent the Liberal opposition party repealing the carbon tax legislation at the next federal election in 2013. Not surprisingly the prime minister’s popularity at the last media poll was 28% and with this announcement today likely to drop further. Sadly because of the Independent’s own personal guaranteed agendas and Greens with their agenda Australia is now guaranteed a carbon tax far removed from climate change.
Prime minister Gillard said when she announced her change of mind that we would now have a carbon tax, as Australia needed to set an example for the world to follow. (Albeit Australia contributes 1.4 % of the total global emissions.)
Yes, we will be the laughing stock of the world, seen jumping head first off a cliff into a shark infested sea, as we will have no way back, because we were sold a tax that has nothing to do with climate change, instead introduced purely for egotistic governance.
@Kim Picking a few numbers from an IPCC report and putting them into your own equation does not equate with “published and peer-reviewed”. The numbers are the IPCC’s, the (frivolous) maths is yours (I assume). It means nothing.
Is it the multiplication or division that you seem to have trouble with?
There is no advanced Maths higher than simple multiplication and division.
If you won’t do the simple maths – how can you tell people the cost of this TAX will have a minimal effect on them?.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
blvr says:
September 20, 2011 at 11:35 am
“I said the cost impact will be very small, and I continue to say that it will be very small – in fact, virtually undetectable for the vast majority of the population.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I invite you to do the Maths
@Kim your maths has nothing to do with the economic impact of the carbon tax, it seems to be trying to ascertain the impact of an emissions reduction trajectory on global temperatures – unless I am misunderstanding something?
In any case, I didn’t say it was too hard, I said it was frivolous (= waste of time) and you’re yet to convince me otherwise.
The economic impact of the tax has been modelled by a few different economists and even a simple calculation can back up these results, which suggest that the economic impact will be very small for the average person and the economy as a whole.
Anyway, as I said earlier, if you have managed to rebut the AGW theory using multiplication and division only, then you should submit your calculations to a peer-reviewed journal. The professors there can handle multiplication and division I think.
You will be famous – and it only took you five minutes to show those dim-witted PhDs that they have wasted the last ten years of their lives!
blvr says:
September 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm
“Anyway, as I said earlier, if you have managed to rebut the AGW theory using multiplication and division only, then you should submit your calculations to a peer-reviewed journal. The professors there can handle multiplication and division I think.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Like many AGW’ers I’ve debated with, you can’t seem to understand.
The Maths presented addresses Cap and Trade schemes – These are separate from the hypothesis of AGW.
I am sorry that you can’t understand that. However, that is what politicized climate science and IPCC has done.
The maths used are not new. I for one am confused by the people who try to sell Cap and Trade Taxes – that haven’t investigated – OR don’t wish to admit it.
EVERY Politician, selling Cap and Trade Taxes, knows this math….BUT hopes the average person won’t ask.
I gave you a link to the first bit of Maths…here it is again http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/11145/The-Answer-Flannery-Refused-To-Give-MAYBE-Just-0-00005-C-In
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
blvr says:
September 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm
“The economic impact of the tax has been modelled by a few different economists and even a simple calculation can back up these results, which suggest that the economic impact will be very small for the average person and the economy as a whole”.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==
Give your references for your above statement – your words aren’t giving evidence.
Personally, I have a bit of a problem accepting your word – when you think the Maths I provided were a “rebut” of the AGW hypothesis [ The correct terminology for AGW – It has a long way to go before being a theory ].
@Kim you seriously aren’t going to drag me down this path. I have no doubt that your arithmetic is correct and in fact I’ve already stated that Australia’s 5% reduction by 2020 will have no discernible effect on global temperatures. We agree about that, so what’s your point? I’m clearly a bit stupid – as has been pointed out a number of times by various different people in various different ways. You need to dumb it down a bit for me.
I’m not clear why I should be required to provide references for my assertions when pretty much everyone on this page (and for that matter the remainder of the AGW sceptic “community”) seems happy to make statements without any attribution. It’s easy to find though, just Google it.
And hypothesis vs theory? Give me a break – are we having a discussion or writing a college dissertation? Let’s drop the semantics. For the sake of this discussion, they are close enough to be the same thing. Or would you rather have a nit-picking discussion like @GKarst instead of getting to the heart of the issue?
Actually it was @PhilJourdan that was the real nitpicker, now that I look back.
Why do contrarians – I won’t use the term “sceptic” as that seems to ring all sorts of alarm bells in terms of comprehension – always seem to retreat to semantics the longer a discussion lasts?
blvr says:
September 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm
@ur momisuglyKim you seriously aren’t going to drag me down this path. I have no doubt that your arithmetic is correct and in fact I’ve already stated that Australia’s 5% reduction by 2020 will have no discernible effect on global temperatures. We agree about that, so what’s your point? I’m clearly a bit stupid – as has been pointed out a number of times by various different people in various different ways. You need to dumb it down a bit for me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I had thought that you Invited me to take the original set of Maths I presented out to an 80% reduction – Oh wait you did.
As evidenced here:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
blvr says:
September 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm
The only way we are going to see a counterfactual reduction in global temperatures in the long run is for all countries to implement programs that reliably and transparently reduce global emissions 80% by 2050 against a 2000 baseline.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I gave you the maths, using IPCC’s own numbers, proving your above statement wrong.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The point is:
Cap and Trade TAXES have nothing to do with “mitigating” reduction of CO2 – Or at least a scientific meaningless amount [ in climate science ] of reduction CO2.
If it isn’t about “mitigation” of CO2 – What are these TAXES about?
Could they be the basis for setting up Carbon Credit Trader schemes? Without this TAX… there is no base for Carbon Traders.
http://www.australiamatters.com/david_rothschild.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
blvr says:
September 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm
I’m not clear why I should be required to provide references for my assertions when pretty much everyone on this page (and for that matter the remainder of the AGW sceptic “community”) seems happy to make statements without any attribution. It’s easy to find though, just Google it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, it was you that required me to produce references first – was it not?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@ur momisugly blvr says:
If it gets published then I will provisionally accept it as plausible. If it is not rebutted after about a year, then I’ll accept that it’s probably right for the time being.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I believe, I would have the same right to request it of you?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
blvr says:
September 20, 2011 at 10:13 pm
And hypothesis vs theory? Give me a break – are we having a discussion or writing a college dissertation?
++++++++++++++++++++
Because, you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory – but seem to try to add weight to your by using the latter?
.
Kim graciously took time out of her day, in order to instruct you, in regards to elemental, peer reviewed math. You can ignore it because you don’t “like” it, but either correct it or acknowledge it. It certainly isn’t semantics, however, all of your replies were. You are apparently unable to discern: who or what is nitpicking. All fingers seem to point to yourself. Try harder. GK
@Kim OK let’s get into it. I guess I’m a sucker for punishment after all.
The 125ppm number looks about right based on a climate sensitivity of 3degC for a doubling of CO2 concentration. Can you refer me to the source of the 14,138 figure? it would take me a long time to sift through all of the stuff the IPCC has put out to date without some help, and this is a critical number.
I am not splitting hairs, nor am I misconstruing what you said. You claim that the “theories” of the “skeptics” have all been debunked, when anyone, including Mann, Jones, Trenberth, etc. will tell you that the “skeptics” are not advancing theories, but merely questioning the works of AGW proponents. So you clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.
in addition, you stated that the “theories” of the AGW proponents have been mostly proven to be correct, when in fact, in the field of Climate Science, nothing has been proven yet. In fact, a theory has not even been devised yet. An alternate hypothesis has been proposed, yet the null hypothesis remains in effect since it has not been disproven. You therefore do not understand science or what you are talking about.
I very much understand you. But understanding what you are saying is not agreeing with your or splittting hairs. It is calling into question your competence on the subject, which you have demonstrated to be non-existent.
@PhilJourdan I said that the theory of AGW is the best theory we currently have to explain recent increases in temperature.
Semantics aside, how is that statement incorrect?
Please explain, without commenting on my intelligence, competence, understanding of science, level of clueiness, ignorance or foolhardiness. Also please try to do it without suggesting that I am lying or religious.
I understand that you are highly ntelligent, very competent, an eminent scientist, very cluey, informed and sensible. I also know that you are honest and agnostic. I bet you’re good looking as well and great fun to hang out with.
Blvr
That figure comes from dividing annual total emissions of CO2 into atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
This is the source used by IPCC http://cdiac.ornl.gov/
Here is the Scientist who taught the average person how to do it
Paul C. “Chip” Knappenberger
http://www.masterresource.org/about/#chip
And here he shows the steps
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/#more-376
Actually, Blvr…I don’t see being religious as a hindrance. I think most religious would question a Minister who becomes authoritarian but lacks credibility? But that is OT….And prolly against WUWT policies.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Thank you G. Karst says:
September 21, 2011 at 9:27 am 🙂
For Kim, G.K., Phil J, ROLFL! ‘U tell ’em luv’.! Oh for non Aussies, there was a famous TV
ad that kept interjecting with the cry – ‘You tell them luv!’ When I went on my puter this morning
I hadn’t used it on Weds as I was at my course for organic agricultural production, I found over 200 unread mail. Most were those who were signing the petition to take to the high court this government who wants to impose this unnecessary carbon tax on us. Just like the high court
slung out the Malaysian solution. This submission has closed now, but this government has imposed amendments to the carbon tax legislation, and gave the Opposition 1 days notice of the changes. They complained and the meeting was abandoned. The opposition MPs who rightly complained about the shortness of the time they had been given but the chairwoman shut down the meeting accusing them of being ‘disruptive’. These amendments included a tax of fuel. They are desperate to get it passed, but typically like they did with this select committee submissions, gave people a week or so to prepare for it. It appears that there are some very big
industrial private heavies who have the money to fund such a court case. Let’s go for it! Through the high courts and see how their carbon tax stands up to real scrutiny, and the skeptical so called deniers, can give evidence that the IPCC science and The Critical Decade
report were undeniably faulty. That’s how the cookie crumbles, Blvr.
Although the governments ‘critical decade’ report, had a disclaimer on it. See if the likes of Flannery and Garnaut will be so outspoken when they are relied on to take an oath. At least it will hold up things until the next election.
kim;
The Knappenberger post is delicious. For rough purposes, I’ve internalized his number as 1¾ million. The ratio of the effect, per AGW models, of CO2 emissions reduction on temp in °C.
Can be used for personal, national, or global CO2 changes.
Thanks muchly.
The CO2 units, of course, are “mmt”, millions of metric tons. Multiply by 2 billion if you want lbs.
😉
Who suggested blvr went to Joanne Nova’s site? Well he has and getting a sound licking there too.
@Kim OK I have looked over the paper. Since this is a long term problem and global in nature, I would like to use the same basic approach and numbers for an 80% reduction in global emissions between 2011 and 2100 to see if there is any impact. The only difference is that I will do it in two parts – the business as usual scenario and the “with measures” scenario. It produces exactly the same outcome, but I found it a bit clearer – even though it takes a bit longer.
Simple calcs for simple people like me. Here are the numbers:
Temperature change rate: 125 ppm/degC (per World Carbon Report)
Qty of CO2 required to raise by 1 degC: 1.767 x 10^12 tCO2/degC (per WCR)
This is Pielke’s magic 1,767,000 mmtCO2/degC, i.e. 1.767 million x million.
Even though I thought the 1.767 number (above) was a bit dodgy (see end notes), I used it anyway. It’s probably close enough for the purposes of this exercise, given all the other simplifications.
Global emissions, 2011: 2.9 x 10^10 tCO2/yr (fossil fuel & cement) (source: cdiac) (this is 29,000 mmtCO2/yr)
Business as usual global emissions forecast, 2100: 1.10 x 10^11 tCO2/yr
The 2100 figure is an estimate of annual CO2 emissions in 2100 if we took no action to slow them (because they are harmless, apparently). It could be a little on the high side. Who knows? Maybe it is on the low side? Anyway, we are dealing with such infinitesimally small temperature changes (thousandths of a degree as I recall) that it really shouldn’t matter how big we make it, right?
Assume a linear increase in emissions between 2011 and 2100.
Average global emissions rate between 2011 and 2100 is then 6.95 x 10^10 tCO2/yr (69,500 mmtCO2/yr). This is just the halfway point between 2011 and 2100.
So between 2011 and 2100, total additions to the atmospheric stock would be 89 x 6.95 x 10^10 or 6.19 x 10^12 tCO2, which is 6,190,000 mmtCO2. Note: this is not an annual amount, it’s the total for the period.
OK, using the magic number, if we add 6,190,000 mmtCO2 to the atmosphere over 89 years, we will increase global atmospheric temperatures by 6.19/1.767 = 3.5 degC.
Right, now the same thing with an 80% reduction in emissions.
I’ll short cut a bit because it’s the same process, so:
Emissions rate is 6.95 x 10^10 x 0.2 = 1.39 x 10^10 tCO2/yr
Total emissions over 89 years = 89 x 1.39 x 10^10 = 1.24 x 10^12 tCO2
Temperature increase is 1.24 / 1.767 = 0.7 degC
So for our efforts, we have reduced global temperatures by 3.5 – 0.7 = 2.8 degC and we have even avoided the “dangerous” two degree temperature increase (shudder). Actually turned out OK then, didn’t it?
This is obviously all extremely rough, hence why it didn’t appear in the IPCC reports I guess. For example:
1. The calculations only take into account CO2. They ignore methane, N2O, HFCs and SF6 emissions
2. Everything is linear. No account is taken of potential changes in climate sensitivity etc as concentration increases due to increased activity of sinks, clouds, etc. I would think it overstates the temperature increase somewhat.
3. The coefficient of determination (R2) on correlating annual emissions and CO2 concentration was only about 0.2, which indicates that changes in concentration are not fully explained by changes in GHG release rates. Although the average was about 14.5 GtCO2/ppm , you could easily have chosen anything between 9 and 30 and still been within a couple of standard deviations of the mean (although I have no idea if it was a normal distribution). So assuming that atmospheric concentration – and therefore temperature – will change at a rate of the “magic” 1,767 mmtCO2/degC is not exactly accurate. It could easily be out by a factor of two.
Anyway, happy for others to look through and pick up any errors that I may have made.
Hiyas bushbunny,
We [ here in the states ] had a similar circumvention attempt. Congress would not pass a Cap and Trade …so our EPA [ an administrative authority ] implemented laws. The Good news is that Mr Obama dearly seeks reelection. His performance in office, is hmmm… shaky…so he put those EPA laws on “indefinite hold”. [ I suspect, if he gets reelected, he will allow EPA to have their way 🙁 ]. Of course, these EPA laws will [ have ] been challenged in our courts.
IMO…the most important thing you can teach kids is that: Good stewardship – is completely independent of the hypothesis of AGW. This will be a hard concept to sell… because IPCC – Mr Gore etc has throughly allowed “Greens” ., energy and “Traders” to politicize / infiltrate the hypothesis / science.
The next is the Maths of Cap and Trade [ as outlined here ]. It is simple Maths – yet, hidden from kids and the public.
The next is a critical mind and knowing how to research claims made.
Kids are taught to take the Scientist of AGW at their word because it’s a complex issue. While I agree Climate is a complex issue, It is not hard for kids to find the “Missing Science” behind claims. When Science becomes “authoritarian” [ as IPCC – Mr Gore etc have chosen to do ], they are held to a much higher standard. Hold them to it! They [ AGW scientist ] seem to demand a higher standard of accountability of anyone who questions their hypothesis – Yet, excuse their accountability. When this attitude is prevalent – start questioning.
Hiyas Brian H says:
September 21, 2011 at 8:46 pm
kim;
The Knappenberger post is delicious. For rough purposes, I’ve internalized his number as 1¾ million. The ratio of the effect, per AGW models, of CO2 emissions reduction on temp in °C.
Can be used for personal, national, or global CO2 changes.
Thanks muchly.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
You are very welcome. 🙂
#1 – It is not a theory. It is an hypothesis.
#2 – It is not the best. The null hypothesis is the best. Until disproven, the scientific method tells us the null hypothesis is the best.
#3 – Semantics is the difference between too, two, and to. The scientific method is not semantics.
Sorry, you brought all of that into the discussion. If you did not mean what you said, then we have nothing further to discuss since I am not clairvoyant. Clearly if you cannot remember what you wrote, that does not mean you are lying – but again it does not lend itself to any type of discussion when you cannot even read what you said in previous posts.
When discussing religion, talk about souls and saviors is normal and acceptable. When talking about science, discussing scientific principals, constructs, and methods is acceptable. You may choose the subject of your discourse, but you may not dictate the responses of the individuals.
Hiyas Blvr.
I have a confession to make.
I baited you…kinda 🙂
I had hoped you would try to use the Maths out to 2100.
To take it out to 2100 large assumptions need to be made. Much larger than on an annual basis.
For the purpose of my Maths…I used the IPCC AGW assumptions. Those assumptions are based on “sensitivity values” assigned by IPCC. Those are 3.4 – 5.7 ( Mr Hansen wants them at 7.0+ ).
Since IPCC’s AR4…. numerous papers have seriously questioned those values. Including Solar variance and Cloud variance.
IPCC’s figures for 2100 are dependent on those values..
This is why this appears in the first set of Maths I gave.
“Quote:A cautionary note: the warming forestalled will only be this big if the IPCC’s central estimate of the rate at which adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming is correct. However, it’s at least a twofold exaggeration and probably more like fourfold. So divide both the above answers by, say, 3 to get what will still probably be an overestimate of the warming forestalled.”
To use the IPCC 2100 assumptions – one must also assume the world, man, science, nature is at a standstill. What inventions / knowledge have happened in the last 100 years? We NEVER do business as usual.
It also assumes that todays temperature is the optimum temperature. Does history [ Observational evidence ] agree?
AND the finale, IPCC AGW makes the biggest assumption. That is by changing CO2 we change temperatures.
First and foremost – Remember CO2 is not climate…it is gas. In other words, We can reduce the gas and not touch the Climate.
blvr says:
September 22, 2011 at 12:43 am
1. The calculations only take into account CO2. They ignore methane, N2O, HFCs and SF6 emissions
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CO2 is taken into account because IPCC has dismissed all other gases [ including water vapor ] And labeled CO2 as being the main driver of climate change.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
blvr says:
September 22, 2011 at 12:43 am
This is obviously all extremely rough, hence why it didn’t appear in the IPCC reports I guess. For example:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Do you really think someone / agency that promotes AGW and it’s schemes, would include this Math?
Do you have so much faith in IPCC – that you can’t question motives / actions taken by them? If you stick around…I think, you’ll find many reasons to question their actions / motivations etc.
There is plenty of evidence as to their political involvement.
HERE is a good start:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/ipcc-ar4-also-gets-a-failing-grade-on-21-chapters/
@ur momisugly blvr
Just a question in an attempt to better understand what you believe.
Say we believe the hypothesis of AGW and the world cut CO2 emissions by 80% overnight with Cap and Trade TAXES – when do you believe we will see the temperature / climatic changes because of those reductions?
READ what politicians say.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/