Thread: Emission Trading

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Might suggest you read those quotes again, Doc.

Yep, read 'em again, got it now, thanks.

Humans stop emitting all CO2 today, it warms for 20 years, then stable for 1000 years.

Very accurate predictions here champ! Let's compare your fairy tale to the empirical data:



WOW!!! We must have stopped emitting all CO2 over 50 years ago, because the atmospheric temperature has stabilised for more than 30 years!!! We are actually .02 degrees LOWER than the average. The 1000 year slow cooling phase has possibly started already.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

The 20 year figure referred to the time taken for the continued warming effect to run its course

Yep, definitely past that point according to the empirical data.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

The 1000 year figure is ... the average air temperature ... would return to levels akin to the end of the 20th century (say).

Yep, definitely past that point according to the empirical data (actually .02 below it).

Your fairy tale came true!!!

Oops, except for the fact us humans have not reduced all our CO2 emissions to zero.

So close, but no cigar.

But lest I be accused of cherry picking, let's see how your 20 year lag of temp to CO2 model works, then the 1000 year stabilisation afterwards. 550 million years should be long enough to see the trend, huh?




OOPS!!!

Sorry dude, can't see it, still no cigar.

But wait, is that CO2 levels peaking at 7000 parts per million, then lowering, then rising again to 3000 parts per million, then lowering, er naturally? I thought you guys said that we had to "Save the Planet" by avoiding the catastrophic 500 parts per million???

The Planet's still here, in my black and white reality anyway, in your colourful version it may have been destroyed and this is all another fairy tale.

Gee, and average global temps recently increased to 22 degrees quite naturally, and then they reduced to 12 degrees quite naturally, now they are gently rising out of the last little ice age, er naturally?

Yeh, I think I'll stick with reality mate.

But you guys keep the fairy tales coming, I like stories that begin with once upon a time.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

And I keep telling you (and your acolytes)......it won't cool Planet Earth.

Yeh, we sceptics know this mate.

Tell it to JuLIAR, Greg Combet, and Bob Brown who all believe it will.

If they don't believe it and are just plain LYING, well, I think we've covered this already.

Once upon a time, the omnipotent psychic computers predicted that the oceans would all rise up and swallow all the evil polluters, and the high priests spread this frightful news to the people:

Professor Garnaut cites new models that suggest the upper predictions of sea-level rise are now as high as 1.9m by 2100.

Climate change may be worse than feared: Ross Garnaut | The Australian

But then the fairy princess got scared, so asked the good prince to check the emipirical facts freely available throughout the kingdom, and the good prince saved the whole Planet with just a trip to the beach:

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.
tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each
time period we consider, the records show small decelerations
that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of
worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain
are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less
than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to
reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf
(2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an
increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this
worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration
of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why
global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last
80 years.

Journal of Coastal Research online journal - Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses

Then the good prince realised the disparity was the kingdoms thermometers were right in the middle of the castle amongst all the fireplaces, so the temperature readings were badly compromised.

But then the wise wizard said "Lo, look skyward at the magic floating thermometers I have conjured, they are beyond the warm bricks of the castle".

And it came to pass that the kingdom went about it's business, except for a few high priests who held mass to invoke the warming spirits, with prophecies of doom for all the non-believers. These masses were held in the dark lest the lighting sticks offend the warming spirits.

And in the kingdom, the princes and the princesses lived happily ever after in their new beach houses right on the water, next to the high priest Greg Combet's luxury beach front house.

See, I can tell fairy tales too!

An inconvenient truth...

Remember how Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery refused to answer my very basic question?

Bolt: On our own, cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020, what will that lower the world’s temperatures by?
Flannery: See, that’s a bogus question because nothing is in isolation…
Bolt: Everyone understands that that is the argument But we’re just trying to get basic facts, without worrying about the consequences - about what those facts may lead people to think. On our own, by cutting our emissions, because it’s a heavy price to pay, by 5 per cent by 2020, what will the world’s temperatures fall by as a consequence?
Flannery: Look, it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Have you got a number? ....
Flannery: I just need to clarfy in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.
Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact… I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.
Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.
Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.
Flannery: Sorry, I can’t ....
Bolt: … Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?
Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.
Bolt: That doesn’t seem a good deal…

But don’t despair! Lord Monckton has been kind enough to give me the straight answer that Flannery et al will not - and his answer explains exactly Flannery’s embarrassed silence:

Q. What is the central estimate of the anthropogenic global warming, in Celsius degrees, that would be forestalled by 2020 if a) Australia alone and b) the whole world cut carbon emissions stepwise until by 2020 they were 5% below today’s emissions?
Answer a). Australia accounts for (at most) 1.5% of global carbon emissions. A stepwise 5% cut by 2020 is an average 2.5% cut from now till then. CO2 concentration by 2020, taking the IPCC’s A2 scenario, will be 412 parts per million by volume, compared with 390 ppmv now. So Man will have added 22 ppmv by 2020, without any cuts in emissions. The CO2 concentration increase forestalled by almost a decade of cap-and-tax in Australia would thus be 2.5% of 1.5% of 22 ppmv, or 0.00825 ppmv. So in 2020 CO2 concentration would be 411.99175 ppmv instead of 412 ppmv…
So the proportionate change in CO2 concentration if the Commission and Ms. Gillard got their way would be 411.99175/412, or 0.99997998. The IPCC says warming or cooling, in Celsius degrees, is 3.7-5.7 times the logarithm of the proportionate change: central estimate 4.7. Also, it expects only 57% of manmade warming to occur by 2100: the rest would happen slowly and harmlessly over perhaps 1000 years (that’s the real meaning of Flannery’s 1000-year point, and it doesn’t do him any favours).

So the warming forestalled by cutting Australia’s emissions would be 57% of 4.7 times the logarithm of 0.99997998: that is – wait for it, wait for it – a dizzying 0.00005 Celsius, or around one-twenty-thousandth of a Celsius degree. Your estimate of a thousandth of a degree was a 20-fold exaggeration – not that Flannery was ever going to tell you that, of course.

Answer b) . Mutatis mutandis, we do the same calculation for the whole world, thus:

2.5% of 22 ppmv = 0.55 ppmv. Warming forestalled by 2020 = 0.57 x 4.7 ln[(412-0.55)/412] < 0.004 Celsius, or less than four one-thousandths of a Celsius degree, or around one-two-hundred-and-eightieth of a Celsius degree. And that at a cost of trillions. Whom the gods would destroy …

If you'd like chapter and verse from the IPCC's documents and from the peer-reviewed for every step of this calculation, which takes full account of and distils down the various complexities and probabilities Flannery flannelled about, you'll find it in this paper…

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.


The answer Flannery refused to give: just 0.00005 degrees | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

OK, cost-benefit time now I guess???

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Just curious, I have never heard China say they will do this. Even Bob Brown doesn't know China will do this. How did you get this great information?

Hardly surprising, you need to read more than right wing blogs...and you would need to ask the author of the article where they got the information from, but here's a helping hand...

China adopts 5-year blueprint, aiming for fairer, greener growth

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Yep, read 'em again, got it now, thanks.

Humans stop emitting all CO2 today, it warms for 20 years, then stable for 1000 years.

Very accurate predictions here champ! Let's compare your fairy tale to the empirical data:



WOW!!! We must have stopped emitting all CO2 over 50 years ago, because the atmospheric temperature has stabilised for more than 30 years!!! We are actually .02 degrees LOWER than the average. The 1000 year slow cooling phase has possibly started already.




Yep, definitely past that point according to the empirical data.



Yep, definitely past that point according to the empirical data (actually .02 below it).

Your fairy tale came true!!!

Oops, except for the fact us humans have not reduced all our CO2 emissions to zero.

So close, but no cigar.

But lest I be accused of cherry picking, let's see how your 20 year lag of temp to CO2 model works, then the 1000 year stabilisation afterwards. 550 million years should be long enough to see the trend, huh?




OOPS!!!

Sorry dude, can't see it, still no cigar.

But wait, is that CO2 levels peaking at 7000 parts per million, then lowering, then rising again to 3000 parts per million, then lowering, er naturally? I thought you guys said that we had to "Save the Planet" by avoiding the catastrophic 500 parts per million???

The Planet's still here, in my black and white reality anyway, in your colourful version it may have been destroyed and this is all another fairy tale.

Gee, and average global temps recently increased to 22 degrees quite naturally, and then they reduced to 12 degrees quite naturally, now they are gently rising out of the last little ice age, er naturally?

Yeh, I think I'll stick with reality mate.

But you guys keep the fairy tales coming, I like stories that begin with once upon a time.

For a bloke who claims to hate psychic computers.....you are doing a wonderful job relying on their data. Both of those plots were created by psychic computers.....

So why should I accept either of them?

Discuss.

Thanks, Frootie for the JCR article link....a very useful paper. Although it does rely pretty heavily on analysis by psychic computers. So your belief in its findings are slightly baffling to Yours Truly.

The implications of the paper are interesting....findings indicate that observations of sea level to date don't fit those of various predictive models output (based on required acceleration rates) but also that the various sources of sea level data aren't necessarily showing comparable data.

Curiously, the authors don't say that sea level rise as a result of AGW is bunkum (as our resident sex analyst seems to suggest). Only that what was expected to happen isn't happening yet and that there's a data issue that requires urgent attention. Caution over catchphrase...

Well worth a read for all.

Originally Posted by johnc

Quoted by Marc "Oohhh the IPCC "reports" are now "science" are they?"


You may not agree with the IPCC reports but that does not alter the fact that they are based on Climate Science infact "The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC was established in 1988 by the WMO and the UNEP. The role of the IPCC is " to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change." (lifted from an IPCC discussion paper)

Facile denigration of those with an opposing view does nothing to express the merits of your view. Once you step aside from the cut and pastes there really isn't much there other than ridicule.

The IPCC reports are based on science, and formulated around the science, and supported by around 97% of climate scientists. You can point to minor errors and contradictions but none are sufficient to alter the view that carbon is a problem and the world is warming.

Oh, give me a break. The IPCC rank amongst the worst peddlers of happy horse digest God ever puffed breath into. You insult the intelligence of those individuals who who are aware that the IPCC is a discredited bunch of oxygen thieves hell bent on distorting scientific information for god knows what end. The observation I make is that one places no value in their credibility by quoting this bunch of prostitutional scientist.

Why do blondes laugh at jokes three times?

Once when you tell it, once when you explain it, and once when they get it.

Let's try again.

See, the first article told you this:

Originally Posted by andy the pm

It means it has promised to reduce by 17 per cent the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of gross domestic product generated by 2015.

Clearing the air

And the second article explained this:

Originally Posted by andy the pm

carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP should be reduced by ... 17 percent ... during the five years

China adopts 5-year blueprint, aiming for fairer, greener growth

And you said this:

Originally Posted by andy the pm

We could also get onto Chinas ... reducing carbon dioxide by 17%.

Get it?

See, it's not so much what you read, but what you comprehend.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

For a bloke who claims to hate psychic computers.....you are doing a wonderful job relying on their data. Both of those plots were created by psychic computers.....

I don't recall ever saying I "hate" psychic computers, but if you have proof of this, feel free to provide it? Proof of claims is not your bailiwick, but give it a go.

I have regularly ridiculed them and people who treat their farcical output as scientific evidence, like this:

Originally Posted by woodbe

I've got better things to do than to try and discuss a scientific theory that predicts the future with someone expecting proof to magically appear in the present. That's not how scientific theories work, and its not how science works.

You're sacked.

woodbe.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

So let me get this straight:

You have a theory that uses computer programs to predict the future?



And I'm the one with the problem for asking for scientific proof?

No wonder I got sacked, talking about reality in that little fantasy!

Now, I will credit you with being mischievous by trying to pretend that the graphs I posted existed in the future. The dates on them clearly show they are from the past. They do not rely on "psychic computers data" as the climate model future predictions need to, they rely on proxy data and measured data. The computers do not generate this data as they do for future models, the data is gathered from a place called reality, you should visit it occasionally.

One is made up from proxy data measurements, on which my views are well documented, and the other is based on empirical historical satellite measurements. My views on the accuracy and arbitrariness of all of these measurements is also well documented, but for the point of this discussion, all of these measurements are historical, as opposed to psychic predictions of the future.

I do hope your efforts are mischievous, as differentiating between historical measurements and future predictions is not a difficult concept to grasp.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

So why should I accept either of them?

You don't have to accept anything, it's a free country.

But if you say (as you do) that you "believe" what a computer program tells you the temperature will be in 100 years, but you don't believe what a satellite thermometer measurement tell you the temperature was yesterday, then we have the epitome of the AGW hypothesis supporter.

The future prediction matches your "beliefs", but the current empirical evidence does not.

So you place your faith in the future prediction, but deny the empirical evidence.

Like I said, it's a free country!

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Discuss.

Just did.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Thanks, Frootie for the JCR article link....a very useful paper.

Thanks mate, I'm touched. Not in the dirty, need a shower afterwards kinda touched, but in the warm fuzzy variety.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Although it does rely pretty heavily on analysis by psychic computers.

Covered this above, but in a nutshell, there is a world of difference between analysing data and just making it up. Mann and his buddy's "analysed" real data and misrepresented it very badly in their hockey stick, but at least it was data, albeit very innaccurate proxy data. The psychic computers just create fictional data 100 years into the future.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

So your belief in its findings are slightly baffling to Yours Truly.

Using computers to analyse data is very different to using computers to create data. You don't need to "believe" this data, as the event has already occurred and has already been measured. Science refers to this as empirical evidence. Hopefully this is somewhat unbaffling?

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

The implications of the paper are interesting....findings indicate that observations of sea level to date don't fit those of various predictive models output (based on required acceleration rates) but also that the various sources of sea level data aren't necessarily showing comparable data.

Welcome to the revolution brother!

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Curiously, the authors don't say that sea level rise as a result of AGW is bunkum (as our resident sex analyst seems to suggest).

My official position (no, it's not missionary) is that there is zero evidence proving the AGW hypothesis. By extension, the further claim that any measured sea level change (up or down) is caused by the warming that is caused by the human CO2 emissions also falls under the fact that there is zero evidence proving it.

This paper supports that same position.

As you suggested earlier, it also goes further by demonstrating that empirical evidence directly contradicts future modelled predictions estimated by computer assumptions. Empirical evidence trumps psychic computer output every time.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Only that what was expected to happen isn't happening yet and that there's a data issue that requires urgent attention. Caution over catchphrase...

Well said. Be alert not alarmed!

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Well worth a read for all.

Aw shucks, there's that warm fuzzy feeling again...

Originally Posted by mark53

Oh, give me a break. The IPCC rank amongst the worst peddlers of happy horse digest God ever puffed breath into. You insult the intelligence of those individuals who who are aware that the IPCC is a discredited bunch of oxygen thieves hell bent on distorting scientific information for god knows what end. The observation I make is that one places no value in their credibility by quoting this bunch of prostitutional scientist.

Oh Please don't get worked up, I wasn't accusing you of being intelligent there is no need to feel insulted. However the baseless and vindictive insults aimed at those who have a different view to your own cherished position indicates that you may have a very slim grip on reality.

“Change” Is Not New | FrontPage Magazine
By Thomas Sowell

When ancient fossils of creatures that live on the ocean floor have been found in rock formations at the summit of Mount Everest, that ought to give us a clue that big changes in the earth are nothing new, and that huge changes have been going on long before human beings appeared on the scene.

The recent statement that the earth was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, made by the climate scientist who is at the heart of the recent scandal about “global warming” statistics, ought to at least give pause to those who are determined to believe that human beings must be the reason for “climate change.”


Other climate scientists have pointed out before now that the earth has warmed and cooled many times over the centuries. Contrary to the impression created in much of the media and in politics, no one has denied that temperatures change, sometimes more than they are changing today.


Three years ago, a book by Singer and Avery was published with a title that says it all: “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.”
Contrary to clever political spin that likened those who refused to join the “global warming” hysteria to people who denied the Holocaust, no one denied that climates change. Indeed, some of the climate scientists who have been the biggest critics of the current hysteria have pointed out that climates had changed back and forth, long before human beings created industrial societies or drove SUVs.


It is those who have been pushing the hysteria who have been playing fast and loose with the facts, wanting to keep crucial data from becoming public, and even “losing” some of that data that supposedly proved the most dire consequences. It has not been facts but computer models at the heart of the “global warming” crusade.
Nothing is easier than coming up with computer models that prove almost anything. Back during the 1970s, there were computer models predicting mass starvation and global cooling. The utter failure of those predictions ought to make us at least skeptical of computer models, especially computer models based on data that advocates want to keep from public view or even “lose” when investigators start closing in.


On climate issues, as on many other issues, the biggest argument of the left has been that there is no argument.
The word “science” has been used as a magic mantra to shut up critics, even when those critics have been scientists with international reputations as specialists in climate science.


Stealing the aura of science for political purposes is nothing new for the left. Karl Marx called his brand of Utopianism “scientific socialism.” Even earlier, in the 18th century, the Marquis de Condorcet referred to “engineering” society. In the 20th century, H.G. Wells referred to the creation of a lasting peace as a heavy and complex “piece of mental engineering.”


Genuine science is the opposite of dogmatism, but that does not keep dogmatists from invoking the name of science in order to shut off debate. Science is a method of analysis, rather than simply a set of conclusions. In fact, much of the history of science is a history of having to abandon the prevailing conclusions among scientists, in light of new evidence or new methods of analysis.


When the scientists in England who were promoting “global warming” hysteria sent e-mails out to colleagues, urging them not to reveal certain data and not to let the fact become widely known that there was a freedom-of-information act in Britain, they were behaving like politicians, rather than scientists.


The huge political, financial and ideological investment of many individuals and institutions in the “global warming” hysteria makes it virtually impossible for many of the climate crusaders to gamble it all on a roll of the dice, which is what empirical verification is. It is far safer to dogmatize and to demonize those who think otherwise.
Educators who turn schools into indoctrination centers have been going all out to propagandize a whole generation with Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”— which has in fact carried a message that has been very convenient for Al Gore financially, producing millions of dollars from his “green” activities.


“Change” Is Not New | FrontPage Magazine
By Thomas Sowell

Here ya go. I'm back. Now this article answeres the preivious artilce on the Tax nicely.

GLOBAL warming is not a myth. There are questions about the science but, as Rupert Murdoch put it, the planet deserves the benefit of the doubt. There are a number of myths about a carbon tax.
1. The greatest myth is that if we lead the world in carbon pricing the rest of the world will follow. We produce 1.5 per cent of the world's CO2; China and America account for 40 per cent. A 5 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions would be cancelled out by as little as a 0.3 per cent increase in China's emissions.
2. Another myth is that we have to lead the world because we are a carbon-based economy and will be more affected when and if the world introduces carbon pricing. Our carbon-based economy is one of our main competitive advantages. To lead on a carbon tax puts our industry at a serious disadvantage against our competitors.
Eighty per cent of power is generated from coal. This low-cost power has underpinned our standard of living by encouraging manufacture and giving low-cost electricity to consumers.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.





End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.


A carbon tax on imports from countries without CO2 pricing is unworkable. We would need to significantly increase the Customs Department and we would still be at risk. Such a move would undo the hard won reforms of the 1990s.

read the rest here. Eight myths of a carbon tax | The Australian

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Now, I will credit you with being mischievous by trying to pretend that the graphs I posted existed in the future. The dates on them clearly show they are from the past. They do not rely on "psychic computers data" as the climate model future predictions need to, they rely on proxy data and measured data. The computers do not generate this data as they do for future models, the data is gathered from a place called reality, you should visit it occasionally.

One is made up from proxy data measurements, on which my views are well documented, and the other is based on empirical historical satellite measurements. My views on the accuracy and arbitrariness of all of these measurements is also well documented, but for the point of this discussion, all of these measurements are historical, as opposed to psychic predictions of the future.

I do hope your efforts are mischievous, as differentiating between historical measurements and future predictions is not a difficult concept to grasp.

And I say again.....you don't really understand computer models do you?

Models are used to fill in gaps in available hard data based on: the available data in question; other data & knowledge about the things that might influence the data; and (potentially) assumptions - mostly about systems behaviour.

Models work in both temporal directions - past and future. They work (not surprisingly) better into the past....because there's more hard data themre but often only as far as the period of human observation (last 500 years but more typically the last 200 years). Distant past is like trying to look out the windows of 747 to get a 360 degree view - you only get to see bits of it and you have to 'model' the rest.

Looking into the future.....is like looking out the windows of a submarine. But if you understand even partially how the environment outside the submarine works (using data from the present) then you can model how it might look or behave given a change in one or more parameters. A low resolution image if you will.....but nothing specific.

Either way....it is the same technique....looking back or looking forward.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

But if you say (as you do) that you "believe" what a computer program tells you the temperature will be in 100 years, but you don't believe what a satellite thermometer measurement tell you the temperature was yesterday, then we have the epitome of the AGW hypothesis supporter.

The future prediction matches your "beliefs", but the current empirical evidence does not.

So you place your faith in the future prediction, but deny the empirical evidence.

There is no way in the world that I would believe any model at the moment if it told me what the temperature will be in one hundred years.....no way. It simply isn't possible for any climate model to be that precise....and that simplistic.

You might call this semantics but if a suite of models all suggest that the expected trend in average surface air temperature based on the climate knowledge to date is such that the average surface air temperature is going to increase by 2 degrees by 2100 and that the confidence level of the modelled trend is greater than 95%.....then I'm happy enough with that. However, I understand that it is based on the climate knowledge to date....and there's some whacking great gaps in that (the JRC paper served as an example of that).

I do accept the current satellite temperature data........just not your analysis of it. There is a big difference.

Future prediction does not accord with my beliefs.....if that were the case I'd win Lotto every other week. The only thing I believe in, in any certainty, is the generic self centredness and shortsightedness of the human animal....yet some would say there's no evidence of that. I've not seen much proof to the contrary.

When it comes to AGW....I accept the analysis and consensus of general climate science based on my own efforts at a type of peer review with respect to the human impact on the atmosphere (increase in GHG []'s)....yet, I'm also aware that there is still much to learn about that atmosphere and how it interacts with the rest of our world....so | take with a few grains of salt most of the predictions with regard to quantifying the impact of that GHG....we remain sufficiently ignorant as a species to make it more than likely that many of the specifics will be incorrect and guite possible that some of the generalities could be too.

I don't support AGW.....sadly, like you, I merely contribute to it

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Eight myths of a carbon tax | The Australian

I don't agree that they are myths......yet I do agree that many are bloody good reasons to not have a 'Carbon Tax'. Plus a few simple truths.

Homo sapien......in summary, often invididually brilliant but collectivly too stupid to do even the simplest things.

And here is where all cap and trade schemes and carbon taxes end up.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives, the largest legislative body in the world, voted yesterday to end the state’s participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative cap-and-trade program. The House voted 251-108 after less than 5 minutes of debate to repeal the law under which the state joined RGGI. A number of Democrats refused to attend due to other legislation voted the same day to declare state employees to be employed at-will rather than having collective bargaining rights.

At lest some people are getting wise, yet we a planning to embark on this journey.

Households will face a $16.60 rise in the cost of living under a $30 carbon tax, new Treasury modelling shows.

That equates to an extra $863.20 a year for petrol, electricity, gas and food.

The new modelling, released this afternoon under the Freedom of Information act, does not include extensive compensation for households or industry promised by the government to compensate for the price impacts of a carbon tax.

The modelling suggests under a $30 carbon price the cost of electricity will rise $4.20 a week, $2.20 a week for gas, $1.70 for food, and $3.60 for petrol.

From: Carbon tax to cost households $16.60 a week

Ways to stop producing carbon dioxide



Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide


Dont drive - We all know how bad driving is


Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity -



Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.


Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.


Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.


Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide.


Turn off this monitor and computer - You hypocrite.


Don't use toilets, urinate or poo in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.


Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide.


Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!
From
http://www.globalwarminglies.com/

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mark/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.png[/IMG]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwJJTXCkp8M&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Climate Catastrophe Cancelled Part 5[/ame]

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Here ya go. I'm back. Now this article answeres the preivious artilce on the Tax nicely.



read the rest here. Eight myths of a carbon tax | The Australian

7. Then there is the myth that renewable energy can replace coal and gas-fired energy production without a substantial cost to the consumer or business.

Putting aside the serious issues of reliability, availability and transmission, the cost of all of the available renewables, such as wind, is far higher than coal.

Well mr CEO of Transfield Services, why do you currently operate 3 windfarms and are investigating the potential of 12 more sites?
Windfarm website

Well Marc, nice posts but will they fall on deaf ears?

Cheers Rod

Originally Posted by Marc

[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Mark/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-5.png[/IMG]

Marc could you check that this is an accurate copy of what was originally created by the authors. The temps displayed at the right hand side of the graph seem strangely out of proportion. The baseline shows 57F, directly above this is a peak of 58F, then below is a point marked 56.3F. Any idea why the distance representing .7 degrees is much longer than the distance 1 degree?

Also one event marked exists only in myths, the exodus from Egypt is not supported by any evidence.

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Marc could you check that this is an accurate copy of what was originally created by the authors. The temps displayed at the right hand side of the graph seem strangely out of proportion. The baseline shows 57F, directly above this is a peak of 58F, then below is a point marked 56.3F. Any idea why the distance representing .7 degrees is much longer than the distance 1 degree?

Also one event marked exists only in myths, the exodus from Egypt is not supported by any evidence.

Maybe it is a denialist's abacus modelling error?

There is another version here with different figures. Which is correct?
Global Temperature Trends Since 2500 B.C.

Originally Posted by andy the pm

Well mr CEO of Transfield Services, why do you currently operate 3 windfarms and are investigating the potential of 12 more sites?
Windfarm website

Because he can make a fortune from government subsidies.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

And I say again.....you don't really understand computer models do you?

I understand their output is not reality (not real). This is the most important part to understand.

But yes, at a deeper level, I do understand both the concept of modelling (computer or otherwise), as well as the specifics of various models, including scientific, financial and statistical. By no means am I an "expert", but have realised understanding the limitations of modelling is far more important than understanding the output. This is another area where the AGW hypothesis supporters have massively failed.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Models are used to fill in gaps in available hard data based on: the available data in question; other data & knowledge about the things that might influence the data; and (potentially) assumptions - mostly about systems behaviour.

Yes, gaps and assumptions!

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Models work in both temporal directions - past and future.

Yes, what's your point?

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

They work (not surprisingly) better into the past....because there's more hard data themre but often only as far as the period of human observation (last 500 years but more typically the last 200 years). Distant past is like trying to look out the windows of 747 to get a 360 degree view - you only get to see bits of it and you have to 'model' the rest.

I don't want to break the bad news to you mate, but there is not more hard data in the past than the future, there is only hard data from the past. Unless you have access to a Gallifreyan you are keeping secret, there is NO hard data from the future.

Any predictions are entirely suppositional based on assumptions, primarily around historical trends and limited knowledge.

I personally have a non-linear philosophy in regards to the space-time continuum, so at a theoretical level will agree that all time and space exists simultaneously, but to indicate that we currently have any access to hard data from the future is disturbing!

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Looking into the future.....is like looking out the windows of a submarine. But if you understand even partially how the environment outside the submarine works (using data from the present) then you can model how it might look or behave given a change in one or more parameters. A low resolution image if you will.....but nothing specific.

Might. A very good word.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Either way....it is the same technique....looking back or looking forward.

Wrong.

Looking back, we plug the gaps within known parameters.

Looking forward is the gap. There are no parameters. We do not even know if it will exist yet!

Here's a crude example.

Past temperature record: 2 4 ? ? 10 12.

We'll model a 6 and 8, whaddya reckon? Could be -10 and -20 for all we know, but let's assume.

Future temperature record:

The Sun explodes tomorrow and destroys the Solar System, entirely unforeseen due our massive knowledge gaps in stellar science and astrophysics.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

There is no way in the world that I would believe any model at the moment if it told me what the temperature will be in one hundred years.....no way. It simply isn't possible for any climate model to be that precise....and that simplistic.

Excellent.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

You might call this semantics but if a suite of models all suggest that the expected trend in average surface air temperature based on the climate knowledge to date is such that the average surface air temperature is going to increase by 2 degrees by 2100 and that the confidence level of the modelled trend is greater than 95%.....then I'm happy enough with that. However, I understand that it is based on the climate knowledge to date....and there's some whacking great gaps in that (the JRC paper served as an example of that).

It does not matter if it is 1 model or a trillion models, it is still not real. Computer models of the future climate programmed with AGW hypothesis assumptions are junk science at best, and outright deception at worst.

Unlike the psychic computers you still believe in, I cannot predict the future. But I am 95% confident that this sham will be laughed at loudly in the future.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

I do accept the current satellite temperature data........just not your analysis of it. There is a big difference.

I haven't analysed it mate, I was just taking the p!ss out of the 20 yr and 1000 yr claims.

I just presented it as measured. Currently .2 degrees LOWER than the average since the 70's, when some scientists were worried about the next ice age coming.

Atmospheric CO2 levels rising and no heat hiding anywhere. Tough data for the AGW hypothesis supporters to argue with, huh? Maybe we should give it to Michael Mann and the IPCC, they could do their "trick",and we'll have a new satellite "hockey stick"?

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

Future prediction does not accord with my beliefs.....if that were the case I'd win Lotto every other week.

Yes, and predicting future climate numbers is infinitely more complicated than predicting future lotto numbers.

A lotto system is a simple, closed, finite and quantifiable system, that we created, we understand and can easily control. And we still have no idea what next weeks numbers will be.

The climate system is a complex, open, infinite, and interactive system, that we did not create, do not understand, and do not control.

Mate, your lotto numbers will come in before your climate numbers.

Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly

we remain sufficiently ignorant as a species to make it more than likely that many of the specifics will be incorrect and guite possible that some of the generalities could be too...I don't support AGW.....sadly, like you, I merely contribute to it

We all contribute to the climate in some way, as do butterflies. If only we had the knowledge and technology to quantify the amount of contribution. I have spoken of Lorenz' work before, particularly in relation to Chaos Theory, and it continues to hold valid today.

Bottom line is humans desire certainty. At some level, these future predictions give them some comfort, as they can assume for a start there will be a future. Prophets have been making profits from this human weakness for a long time now.

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Because he can make a fortune from government subsidies.

Yeh mate, Diehard's like you and I stand in front of the greenie gravy train.

Smart business people are jumping aboard. Gail Kelly of Westpac is very keen for her profits to start climbing.

Taxpayers utimately will be fueling this greenie gravy train with their new Carbon Dioxide Taxes.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Yeh mate, Diehard's like you and I stand in front of the greenie gravy train.

Smart business people are jumping aboard. Gail Kelly of Westpac is very keen for her profits to start climbing.

Taxpayers utimately will be fueling this greenie gravy train with their new Carbon Dioxide Taxes.

Its amazing that the original post on this could be made as if to say he believes so much in AGW that he must build all these wind farms to save the earth.

I personally know businessmen jumping on the gravy train and laughing at the government stupidity.

I remain dumbfounded that people cant see this

Originally Posted by chrisp

That equates to an extra $863.20 a year for petrol, electricity, gas and food.

From: Carbon tax to cost households $16.60 a week

Wow, and that's only modelling using four cost assumptions!

What will happen to costs of:

School fees
School uniforms
Stationery
Vehicles
Houses
Plumbers
Electricians
Tools
Building materials
Furniture
White goods
Clothes
Shoes
Cinema's
Rent prices
Caravan parks
Holiday costs
Public transport
Air travel
etc etc etc.

Hands up if you are self-employed or a small business owner who will NOT pass these increased costs to your customers.

Because you can be d@mn sure big business will.

And that certainly includes the "big polluters".

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Marc could you check that this is an accurate copy of what was originally created by the authors. The temps displayed at the right hand side of the graph seem strangely out of proportion. The baseline shows 57F, directly above this is a peak of 58F, then below is a point marked 56.3F. Any idea why the distance representing .7 degrees is much longer than the distance 1 degree?

Also one event marked exists only in myths, the exodus from Egypt is not supported by any evidence.

You argue about whether a picture without a scale is drawn to scale:




When there are literally hundreds of scientific studies based on proxy data supporting the Medieval Warm Period that AGW hypothesis supporters continue to deny existed:




And yet, when it has been demonstrated that the "hockey stick" was a fictional creation, you AGW hypothesis supporters still "believe" that it is real:



You claim to care more about a picture that's not drawn to scale, as opposed to a scientific fraud that was quietly swept under the carpet by the IPCC never to reappear in any of their reports, and never to be spoken about since, but that AGW supporters still support. What a joke.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

You argue about whether a picture without a scale is drawn to scale:




When there are literally hundreds of scientific studies based on proxy data supporting the Medieval Warm Period that AGW hypothesis supporters continue to deny existed:




And yet, when it has been demonstrated that the "hockey stick" was a fictional creation, you AGW hypothesis supporters still "believe" that it is real:



You claim to care more about a picture that's not drawn to scale, as opposed to a scientific fraud that was quietly swept under the carpet by the IPCC never to reappear in any of their reports, and never to be spoken about since, but that AGW supporters still support. What a joke.

This is the sort of blinkered hypocrisy that really get up my goat. When the fence sitters see this they too realize what a joke the AGW farce is.

Just tell me why you guys don't see that this "battle" of the graphs does not raise some concern in your minds?

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Because he can make a fortune from government subsidies.

You sure that fortune hasn't come from subsidised fuel for coal power??

Originally Posted by andy the pm

You sure that fortune hasn't come from subsidised fuel for coal power??

And this changes what? about my comment.

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

And this changes what? about my comment.

You really need help figuring it out??

Just tell me why you guys don't see that this "battle" of the graphs does not raise some concern in your minds?

One is about northern hemisphere temp, the other is Europe only. One shows temp anomally, the other shows straight temp

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Marc could you check that this is an accurate copy of what was originally created by the authors. The temps displayed at the right hand side of the graph seem strangely out of proportion. The baseline shows 57F, directly above this is a peak of 58F, then below is a point marked 56.3F. Any idea why the distance representing .7 degrees is much longer than the distance 1 degree?

Also one event marked exists only in myths, the exodus from Egypt is not supported by any evidence.

Phil, I'll ask Cliff Harris to hand me an autographed copy next time I see him.
As for the historical accuracy of the exodus from Egypt, there is ample evidence and a match between the biblical account ant the history of Egypt. There is however an inaccuracy in the dates. The more probable date is around 2450 BC and not what is traditionall thought as 1450
. Check "A history of ancient Egypt" by Nicolas Grimal.

Originally Posted by andy the pm

You really need help figuring it out??

Yes actually I would. I know what you are trying to do I would like to see you explain it.

Like to see how your mind works here.

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Just tell me why you guys don't see that this "battle" of the graphs does not raise some concern in your minds?

One is about northern hemisphere temp, the other is Europe only. One shows temp anomally, the other shows straight temp

So no concern there at all?

Not even that the Hockey stick is a fabrication?

How does the mind of a religious fanatic work?

I arrived my weekend house this morning and had to maneuver around a group of people that were standing in front of my gates.

As I entered my front yard a couple of the more ancient followed me inside uninvited, pacing around my new courtyard congratulating me on the job. I refrained from any unpleasantness because my wife asked me to and said...what can I help you with.
The guys told me their names and said they were working on a Christian Ministry in the area. This is a new one I thought, that a JW presents himself as a christian missionary but I let it slide and said politely that I was not interested in religion.

To what this prick replied....Ah, so you are an atheist !

It is not possible to have a civil exchange of information with a fanatic, it is dangerous to attempt any communication with one if you disagree with him.

Originally Posted by Dr Freud

Wow, and that's only modelling using four cost assumptions!

What will happen to costs of:

School fees
School uniforms
Stationery
Vehicles
Houses
Plumbers
Electricians
Tools
Building materials
Furniture
White goods
Clothes
Shoes
Cinema's
Rent prices
Caravan parks
Holiday costs
Public transport
Air travel
etc etc etc.

Hands up if you are self-employed or a small business owner who will NOT pass these increased costs to your customers.

Because you can be d@mn sure big business will.

And that certainly includes the "big polluters".

Did you look at the figures? Maybe you should take another closer look and add up the four items. You will see that after adding the four listed items, that there is another $4.90 per week left over.

It seems that you have wrongly assumed that the modelling only used "four cost assumptions!"

I think that you'd find that the $4.90 will be to cover all those other items, such as those you have listed.

Phil, I'll ask Cliff Harris to hand me an autographed copy next time I see him.

See if you can get the data that he used to compile the graph as well while you're there. And give him a few pointers on how to draw graphs with the both x and y axis. On second thoughts don't bother, it's expecting too much. He's only a TV weatherman after all. But he does have divine inspiration as he uses the bible to help with his weather predictions.

As for the historical accuracy of the exodus from Egypt,

The only evidence is on questionable god-botherers web pages and books. Check the views of real archeologists and bible scholars, it's like most of the bible, pure mythology.

Originally Posted by chrisp

did you look at the figures? Maybe you should take another closer look and add up the four items. You will see that after adding the four listed items, that there is another $4.90 per week left over.

It seems that you have wrongly assumed that the modelling only used "four cost assumptions!"

i think that you'd find that the $4.90 will be to cover all those other items, such as those you have listed.

you think?

Originally Posted by PhilT2

, it's like most of the bible, pure mythology.

Like AGW eh!

Originally Posted by andy the pm

You sure that fortune hasn't come from subsidised fuel for coal power??

Why not, yours has.

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Just tell me why you guys don't see that this "battle" of the graphs does not raise some concern in your minds?

One is about northern hemisphere temp, the other is Europe only. One shows temp anomally, the other shows straight temp

Enough with the wishy washy comments and irrelevant semantics about this temp vs that temp. We've covered all this already and you can read the thread to rebut your comments above.

How about you demonstrate the courage of someone else's convictions.

Are you saying the MWP never happened?

Are you saying the "hockey stick" is a valid representation of the proxy data?

You guys love hiding behind semantic sidetracks, how about you ante up.

Originally Posted by chrisp

Did you look at the figures? Maybe you should take another closer look and add up the four items. You will see that after adding the four listed items, that there is another $4.90 per week left over.

It seems that you have wrongly assumed that the modelling only used "four cost assumptions!"

I think that you'd find that the $4.90 will be to cover all those other items, such as those you have listed.

Instructions to Treasury were to model four specified costs, being electricity, gas, fuel and food.

This was not my "wrong assumption", but the governments instruction to Treasury.

Another part of that instruction was to model an "overall impact" assessment. This was not a specific cost but a generic assumption as to how households would be affected overall. The gap is the difference between the four specified costs and the "overall impact" assessment.

So yes, the gap can be assumed to cover all of the costs not modelled (a tiny sample I have listed). If you believe $4.90 will cover the price increases of every other business and household expense not modelled, then feel free. Like I always say, we live in a free country.

Originally Posted by PhilT2

See if you can get the data that he used to compile the graph as well while you're there. And give him a few pointers on how to draw graphs with the both x and y axis.

You persist in criticising an internet picture.

Yet you continue to support data splicing using truncated data from differing data-sets without disclosure that was willfully used to influence government policy and expenditure with real world detrimental outcomes.

Well done champ. Maybe your reality check is in the mail?

Originally Posted by PhilT2

Phil, I'll ask Cliff Harris to hand me an autographed copy next time I see him.

See if you can get the data that he used to compile the graph as well while you're there. And give him a few pointers on how to draw graphs with the both x and y axis. On second thoughts don't bother, it's expecting too much. He's only a TV weatherman after all. But he does have divine inspiration as he uses the bible to help with his weather predictions.

As for the historical accuracy of the exodus from Egypt,

The only evidence is on questionable god-botherers web pages and books. Check the views of real archeologists and bible scholars, it's like most of the bible, pure mythology.

Phil, what is your point?

You dislike my graph because it is not in scale.
However the graph is a very good ILLUSTRATION with nice colours and a historical date line to make the following point...in case you missed it: The current temperature is perfectly within the normal and shows no record of any "human generated warming" when seen in a historical context. Also makes another point showing the volcanic eruptions and their link to temperature. In order to make such illustration scale is irrelevant and time accuracy is usually within the + - 100 years or so.

You try to discredit such graph not by providing proof to support the hockey stick graph that made off with the medieval warm period but by saying that one of the author is not credible because he is only a weather man. Also you claim it is not right because in your personal opinion the exodus from Egypt did not happen.

Now, lets see: This weather man, irritates you why? because he makes a shitload more money than you? (and we all know that money is evil right?) Because he makes a point you can not rebut? Because he happens to be right and you wrong yet you would like it to be the other way around? Because he is a christian and you are not?
All very valid reasons to hate him, but Phil, I am afraid that such arguments are valid in year 3 and perhaps year 4 but not further than that. I think you will have to refine your arguments a tad.
But hey...that is only my opinion not to be taken too seriously OK?