Not pricing carbon would cost us dearly

LeftRightOut says:

09:01am | 20/03/11

Indeed, or, to contradict one’s self (as Marles does) - “There is no longer a doubt about the science” is mentioned at one point, then later… “it is not surprising that there are some scientists who say that the causal connection has not been established” - which to me, would indicate that there remains a debate about the science.

I find it amazing, that these unionists can dish out this drivel, and remain straight faced. They do their members/associates no good (nor have they for many a decade) and carry on with this tosh, knowing that it will cost working class jobs and working class standard of living.
Compensation may buffer them (compensation is new-speak for wealth redistribution)  in the short term, but long term, they will suffer. The rich will be fine, in fact, they’ll get richer if for no other reason than the massive inflationary environment that Labor are causing… the damage these political whores are doing to Australia is immeasurable.

Steve of Cornubia says:

09:36am | 20/03/11

Union leader do not represent their members, they represent only themselves. They will support whatever the Labor party proposes - albeit sometimes with token resistance in order to maintain the illusion of independence. Why? Well, watch where these people go. One day a union executive, the next either a Labor MP or heading some quasi-government body, appointed by their chums in Labor.

So when you see a union official spouting some line that seems at odds with their responsibilities toward their members, just wait and you will see them get their payback - a nice well-paid job from which they can retire early, on a very healthy pension (unlike their members).

John A Neve says:

11:17am | 20/03/11

LeftRightOut,

I love your post, don’t understand it, but I love it.

Just who is “working class”? What is a “working class standard of liveing”?  How do you define “rich”?

Since the introduction of national superanuation, we are all either workers or bosses. The bulk of large businesses are owned by the public (public companies), or shareholders. Most, if not all CEO’s are in fact employees.

You seem by your post to oppose “wealth redistribution”, so I can only assume you are “rich”!

But to repeat, I love you post, it’s good light reading.

Dissident says:

12:15pm | 20/03/11

Seems this didn’t work the first time… Try again.

Saying that the science is settled is the first thing that you do when you don’t want to debate the science. So here are the questions for Mr. Marles - when did we have the debate, who was present from both sides of the argument and where can I find a transcript? Don’t send me a link to an ABC debate, they are always left-wingers furiously agreeing on how evil humanity is.

The argument that ‘everybody else is doing it’ is pure tosh as well. The US is running away from carbon pricing at quite the rate of knots, the European market is a scandal-riddled disgrace and the Chinese are forecast to have increased their emissions by 500% from their 1990 levels by the year 2020. ‘Carbon friendly’ eh? I guess you could say that if think ‘carbon friendly’ means: spews a shedload of carbon pollution. The Californians may press ahead with their breathing tax - but it ain’t to fix the environment. I will give you a hint about their motivations - check their budget deficit….

This precautionary principle is pure rubbish as well. By that convoluted logic, I shouldn’t have a shower tonight because I could slip and bang my head on the taps and bleed to death. I certainly shouldn’t drive my car anywhere either, because people die in motor vehicle accidents all the time. Precautionary principle is a lazy argument by a hack who clearly doesn’t understand the merits of a simple cost benefit analysis.

Here is my cost benefit analysis for you guys…

Cost - Billions of dollars of tax ripped from the pockets of ordinary Australians

Benefit - Nil. Unless one of you wants to tell me how many degrees the temperature will go down by if we implement this idiotic tax?

But ladies and gentlemen, as ill conceived as Mr Marles article is (it is rather like an infant bludgeoning the square peg through the round hole and mangling the set) it does have its place on the Punch. This is called a debate, and for Mr Marles benefit - debates usually have people represented from both sides of the argument.

John Parry says:

05:09pm | 25/03/11

“There is no longer a doubt about the science.” - Absolutely. No doubt according to Tim Flannery that “If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.”

Just more Unionist/Labour drivel, hey James?

Unionist says:

07:42am | 20/03/11

Peter says:05:22am; Nor did they indicate that they did. It must be too simplstic for you to understand what was actually being put forward in the PM’s courtyard. I would guess you wouldn’t understand the detail when it is put forward. All you will have to offer is another simplistic view. I mean you must be a simpleton if all you have is words put in your mouth by Abbott baaa baa…. careful you might wake to find wool growing behind your ears.

Steve of Cornubia says:

09:38am | 20/03/11

As always, the ‘debate’ descends into name-calling and personal attacks, in place of any reasoning.

Is it any wonder many people are doubtful?

Brett says:

10:14am | 21/03/11

Unionist - Your post made zero sense whatsoever. Please make sense when you post, especially if you are going to tell someone that they are simplistic and imply that you are far more intelligent than they.

Eddie says:

10:53am | 21/03/11

@Unionist.  So what you are saying is that those of us who don’t have all the info around climate change should put our trust and faith in the government because they want to do what is right for us, right?  And to be honest I wish I could do that too.  However to your trust in a government that has time and again proven to the public that it cannot manage tax payers money.  To get any sort of credibility back these people must convince us first that this is the way to go before we accept it.  Plain and simple.

DocBud says:

03:07pm | 20/03/11

Alcoa, like any company, will quite rightly seek to maximise its profits. If it can do so in Australia through taxpayer funded compensation it will stay, but if it can better do so elsewhere then it will up sticks and head overseas. Other countries will see Australia’s carbon price as a potential opportunity to lure Australian companies to set home in their country.

Richard Marles has to be aware of the risk of companies relocating to where the cost of doing business is less, but his loyalty is to Labor, not Australian workers and businesses.

Richard Marles

Lisa Meredith says:

03:52pm | 20/03/11

Dear Damien,

One way would be to develop and build their own renewables-based power station, either on or off site. The potential benefits might be as follows:
- sell their power generation technology and skills as a package to other companies that want to follow suit,
- sell the excess power during plant downtime to the main grid.

DocBud says:

04:28pm | 20/03/11

Lisa,

That will push costs up, not something companies look to do. Simpler to move somewhere that provides a reliable supply of cheap electricity than build an expensive power plant.

It would have to buy the power generation technology and skills so they would not be its to sell. What little spare capacity it had is unlikely to be able to be sold at a profit due to the high expense of renewables.

What sort of renewables were you thinking of that could reliably power the 360MW that Port Henry consumes each year and where would you put them?

Lisa Meredith says:

05:33pm | 20/03/11

Dear DocBud,

Good point, well made.

I can only reply be attaching a certain amount of hope to my opinions on business and industry adaptation.

For example:
- We could tax the fossil fuel needed to ship the bauxite off shore,
- We could tax the aluminium products we import relative to the carbon emissions of their manufacture,
- We could subsidise Alcoa with their on or off site power generation development,
- We could recognise that by taking up and using renewables they will improve in efficiency and storage methods,
- The skills that Alcoa could sell might involve power plant development, implementation and management, firstly to other aluminium smelters,
- Alcoa could push for and sell their aluminium products to renewables manufacture in Australia.

If we are serious about reducing GHG emissions in Australia then its either through market forces or by direct action. Either way, it will cost industry to change.

Saskia says:

07:10am | 20/03/11

Thanks for adding to the debate.

You know you have win the debate when one side can only attack the man.

The AGW scam is deep into it’s end days.

Aitch B says:

07:16am | 20/03/11

@acotrel

And yet you cling to the false notion that the Liberals believe that they have this “divine right”, Alan. Please provide some documented evidence that this is so.

And you believe that Julia’s priority is NOT to be in a position of power?

Yeah, right…....... how altruistic of her.

marley says:

08:58am | 20/03/11

Acotrel - I gather you don’t live in NSW.  If you think the ALP has shown the slightest interest in or capacity to build infrastructure, you’re wrong.

Phil says:

10:41am | 20/03/11

So acotrel. What are your options?

Why not shut down all power stations immediately and let everyone fend for themselves?
Why not look at Nuclear?
If carbon is soooo bad why continue to export coal in every increasing quantities?
See any carbon tax that is subsidised in my books has no merit, it is simply social engineering dressed up as climate change reversal.
If carbon is the big deal you and labor say, why pay those on lower incomes compensation, they polute just as much as the next person, often more as they cant afford greener technologies and newer fuel efficient cars. Often they choose to drive their V8’s.
Why not Petrol $ 2 a litre minimum that would alter habits?
Double everyones elctricity bills? Surely that will bring about the changes you desire.
Mr Marles is a traitor to his former employers in towing the party line, as many union workers are set to lose their jobs by a carbon tax.
If tihs is revenue neutral as they say, why not just give tax incentives to companies to be greener?
Why cancel government green programs and get rid of the cash for clunkers (hey I though it a dumd idea but surely for those on lower incomes it was a good idea)
Prime Minster Brown would be happy with your and Richard’s rants on his behalf.

Gregg says:

11:19am | 20/03/11

@ acotrel
You might be a bit surprised on what levels of government are responsible for infrastructure if you are prepared to have a look and we’re just coming out of a lengthy period with wall to wall Labor carpet if you didn’t know.

In Queensland, one of Beattie’s infrastructure priorities was to build a new sports stadium, transport and medical facilities a distant secind and third.
It was a Brisbane City Mayor not of Labor flavour that has been driving a lot of the Brisbane bypass roads infrastructure.
For hospitals, have a look at what is occurring in Victoria and it was a Labor government that was having the Private Sector build new
” public ” hospitals to be run by private organisations.

So it would seem that Labor is prepared to follow in Liberal footsteps.
And then there is asset sell off and Labor has been up to their necks in it too with the Power Industry, Water services and for Queensland, their rail network .

But then you get the Labor Feds dabbling with the BER, the killing ceilings of insulation and the ” we do not really know ” NBN and so no small wonder the nations finances are in such a mess that normal funding cannot be applied to floods infrastructure work and a Levy has to be introduced, even with all Juliars new taxes.

Wake up to yourself and Juliar Acca, that’s if you can or want to.

Futureproof says:

12:58pm | 20/03/11

If you think that Tony Abboit and the liberals cling to the ideology of the 19th century, then you must be pleased that Fair Work Australia is a stepback in time to the very century you are espousing.  Good try - fail.  The ALP are good at failure, just ask the tear gas makers.  They are geting rich from Christmas Island

Lisa Meredith says:

07:14pm | 20/03/11

Dear Saskia,

I am having trouble posting my reply to you: I will try again.

If AGW is a scam, it is a 100 year old scam that began in 1896 with Svante Arrehnius.

Since then, the independent development of physics and chemistry that explain the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle, and the studies in prehistorical climate and atmospheric measurement have verified and refined the theory of AGW.

Phil says:

07:01am | 21/03/11

Lisa
As you appear to be of the opinion that Carbon Dioxide is harming the planet, how do you intend to combat this.
Given that a Carbon Tax and our 5% reductions will be more than used up by China just to the north each year, let alone by 2020 or 2050 how will us destroying many industries assist?
Further would you advocate for a Carbon Tax is no compensation was available, thus removing the wealth redistribution tag? After all everyone would only pay for the Carbon Diamoide they emit surely a much fairer system!
Would love to know just how many pro Carbon Tax advocates have coughed up their own cash for solar systems, hybrid cars and the like.
Or as I and many expect its do as I say not do as I do???

Lisa Meredith says:

10:00am | 21/03/11

Dear Phil,

I have no doubt that we should be proactive about climate change. It might not stop CO2 emissions completely, it might not even slow it down. Either way, we need to be prepared for AGW impact over the next 100 to 500 years, through adaptation and mitigation.

Exactly how to go about it, I must leave to the economists. I understand the science, not so much the economics. True, I do have opinions about tax vs. direct action and business adaptation, but these are just my unqualified opinions.

I believe we have been enjoying the benefits of artificially cheap carbon based energy, where the true cost of its waste disposal has not been paid, and sooner or later we will have to pay the price. This includes me.

I am happy with whatever system is put in place, be it the Liberal or the Labour alternative, as long as it changes behaviour.

There are indeed laws we could put in place to help this along. What I have listed below represents changes in behaviour, be it brought about by laws, a carbon price or subsidisation. Here are examples, some much more fanciful than others:

- Make public transport free or tax deductible.
- Make adult education accessible to all, and either free or tax deductible.
- Give public transport and bicycles right of way over cars in CBDs.
- Put interstate freight back on the rail network and work to electrify the whole rail network.
- Start putting solar panels and wind turbines along the rail corridor, all major transport corridors, and the high tension wire corridors of the main grid. This could be rolled out locally, and over time.
- Outlaw domestic turf.
- Somehow pay private landowners to grow forests or return unproductive land to native plant cover.
- Somehow require design and building of cyclone and flood proof buildings where needed, and air-conditioner free buildings everywhere.
- Allow greater scope for horse based transport in rural areas.
- Somehow make every house have a water tank, solar hot water and solar panels.
- Somehow roll out electric cars and phase out petrol.
- Somehow force business migration to self power generation.
- Somehow bring about renewables manufacturing industries in Australia.
- Somehow force R&D of renewables efficiency and power storage.

Phil says:

12:26pm | 21/03/11

Lisa. I notice you didnt respond to my point neither did acotrel as to what personal action you have both taken to reduce your carbon impact on the planet.
I will not answer all your points mentioned below, but who and how do you expect to pay for all of this, free or tax deductible public transport? Electrify all trains, guess what that would produce more CO2 which is harmful, less that fact that at least in Sydney and I am sure elsewhere public transport is a shamble, and unlikely regardless of who is in power to change in the next decade or so, plus the additional time and lost production which must be paid by someone.
See I can drive to a customer in 30 mins but it might take 2-3 hours by public transport. As I charge say $ 200 an hour is my client likely to pay an extra $ 300 to see me, unlikely.
I think we should look at nuclear, as unlikely as that is after Japan, we are not on major fault lines and plants could be built in protected areas, Japans reactors were damaged by the Tsunami not Earthquake.
If energy is cheap at the moment, perhaps you might like to pay my power bill.

Lisa Meredith says:

03:02pm | 21/03/11

Dear Phil,

I understand how we tend to think about tomorrow in terms of today, but we don’t have to draw a line across the future based the limitations of now.

Technology will improve and paradigms will shift, as they have done so throughout history.

Phil says:

07:00pm | 21/03/11

Lisa. Thanks for your response. I must admit I just fully read your earlier response and it was one of the best laughs I have had in ages.
Seeing as you are so for Horse usage in the country, how about I buy one and you can ride it from say Parkes to Dubbo on a regular basis.
May I ask why are you against turf?
What has adult education have to do with climate change?
I take it you are a big fan of Clover Moore given you are so pro bikes.
May I ask do you cycle everywhere now? How do you suggest when people age do they get around if we are to become a cycle city?
How would the products you take for granted when you walk in a shop get around if only bikes were used in the main.
Design of cyclone or flood proof buildings is the responsibility of local governments, plus individuals building them. By your posts do you suggest by any chance that the tax payer subsidise the construction of such private buildings? Individuals often choose to build live in areas such as this. They build knowing that it may flood.
As for electric cars, are you aware of the CO2 output to build a hybrid, and that is one with a small petrol engine. If they were all purely electric and you were to charge them unless nuclear power was used and everyone took up your plan our CO2 output would go threw the roof.
If you force businesses to self power, you will kill off every locally produced manufactured product other than some food products which will become so expensive anarchy will soon follow.
It might be fine for some inner city wine sipping socialist greens to say no cars, use public transport and the government pay for everything, but it will never work. The main issue with socialism and the current government is learning this the hard way, is that EVENTUALLY EVERYONE ELSES MONEY RUNS OUT.

Lisa Meredith says:

01:31pm | 22/03/11

Dear Phil,

Not sure how its socialist, but I did say it was fanciful. It is indicative of the paradigm shift that visionaries can see.

The adult education one is just about what a population needs to move from one industry to another, or to adopt new lifestyle techniques, that is all.

Domestic turf is perhaps an unsustainable use of land, unless it is part of a commons for grazing. In the future it is more likely to grow stuff to eat, or grow native plants. We won’t be able to water or mow it.

James says:

09:24am | 20/03/11

Still a “theory” I assume you’re using the term theory in the ordinary sense, not the in the scientific here which I find amusing considering how you’re making a scientific claim yourself. Have you ever read any of the peer reviewed scientific journals such as Science or Nature? EVERY single issue details more research being conducted into this field. If you type climate change into their database you get thousands of entries. Tell me, where is the basis of your claim when there are thousands of peer reviewed studies out there demonstrating its true.

My word says:

10:41am | 20/03/11

For all those who cling to the “its just a theory” line as if that were some sort of last word Gotcha:

Gravity is just a theory.

It’s what keeps your feet on the ground.

And goodness gracious, it too is subject to continuing measurement, analysis and refinement.

And it won’t go away either.

TrueOz says:

01:08pm | 20/03/11

@ James

I think you’ll find plenty of “peer reviewed” style documents from medieval times supporting various theories about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Medieval pedants spent endless years debating this matter of eternal importance - much like our modern day windbags in Canberra debating a carbon price.

Using your theory we should all be eating s*#t - 500 billion flies can’t possibly be wrong - right?

DocBud says:

03:19pm | 20/03/11

Being acquainted with the scientific process, James, you’ll be familiar with the limitations of the peer review process which have been well captured by Richard Horton in his submission to the Commons Select Committee for Science and Technology in the UK:

“Despite peer review, are authors able to get away with dishonest or dubious research? Yes, they are. Peer review does not replicate and so validate research. Peer review does not prove that a piece of research is true. The best it can do is say that, on the basis of a written account of what was done and some interrogation of the authors, the research seems on the face of it to be acceptable for publication. This claim for peer review is much softer than often portrayed to the general public. Experience shows, for example, that peer review is an extremely unreliable way to detect research misconduct.” 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m02.htm

This would be the sort of thing he had in mind, peer reviewed research that has been relied upon by others in their own peer reviewed research:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk&feature=related

iansand says:

03:42pm | 20/03/11

Peer review is only a part of the “scientific process”.  Replication is another.  Something of which I assume DocBud is aware.

Reggieman says:

04:23pm | 20/03/11

iansand says

“Peer review is only a part of the “scientific process”.  Replication is another.”

Yes, that’s true, and the Greenhouse effect has been replicated in the laboratory many times. BUT, the effect of human CO2 emissions upon the atmosphere has never been proven in the laboratory, and can not ever be proven. It is simply a theory and while shown to occur in computer models (wholly dependent upon what data is fed into it), it does not comply with any true scientific methodology.

Lisa Meredith says:

04:27pm | 20/03/11

Dear DocBud,

And corroborative evidence (such as predictions that bear out in another discipline) is yet another part of the scientific process.

DocBud says:

04:37pm | 20/03/11

You think so wouldn’t you, iansand, given that the term appears in the quote I provide? Replication only starts after publication. My point was that the peer review process does not, and is not intended to, provide any kind of guarantee that the contents of a paper are true and the term should not be used to imply that it does.

Twenty years ago, most people would not have been aware of the term, now many have been fooled into believing that it is a means of preventing incorrect research and ideas from being published. Far too much reliance is placed on something that is as fallible as any human process.

My word says:

05:01pm | 20/03/11

TO has outdone himself, with not one but two totally false analogies in the one post.

iansand says:

06:17pm | 20/03/11

Oh come on, Doc Bud.  It’s a hell of a lot better than the ignorance that comes from Team Denial.  If you were a true believer in the scientific method you would be fulminating against the lies and calumnies that spout from the scared weird little guys.

Lisa Meredith says:

06:58pm | 20/03/11

Dear Reggieman,

If the greenhouse effect has been replicated and shown to be true in the laboratory, how would it not be applicable to the world at large?

We know from our studies of past climate change that the greenhouse effect plays a significant role in regulating the total thermal kinetic energy in the system, (and on Venus), so how would it not apply to the increase in GHGs observed since the Industrial Revolution?

Northern Steve says:

07:26pm | 20/03/11

Just to try to educate a few people, in science, the word theory simply means an idea that can be tested.  That is all. Nothing to do with whether it is true or not.  So, the Theory of Gravity is a theory, because it can be tested to find out if it is true or not.  Evolution can be tested by looking at the evidence.  Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory in that it cannot be tested.
Climate Change due to CO2 is a testable theory, with much historical and current evidence to show that an increase in CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature.  What is still under debate is exactly how much the climate will change with the current and predicted rise in CO2.  Generally speaking, even at the lower end of the accepted range, change is inevitable.
There are very few scientists would would state otherwise
(and please don’t quote Dr Spencer, an EX NASA scientist and creationist - all he has is a testable theory with virtually NO evidence to support it, and what evidence he does provide still shows a warming atmosphere over the past 40 years)

Northern Steve says:

07:29pm | 20/03/11

@Iansand,
Historic data (from ice core samples) shows a very clear correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures.  This has been shown in a large number of studies, in many parts of the world.  So consider the data to be replicated.

James says:

08:55pm | 20/03/11

Obviously peer review is not a perfect purpose and you do sometimes get papers through that are later found to be rubbish. But it is none the less the best system for evaluating the research that has been done and providing a methodology so that other can attempt to replicate the results and if this fails they can send a “please explain” message to the previous authors.

RE: my word - you are comparing the work of religious nutjobs in the middle ages who made things up in their minds to modern scientists today who have to provide evidence for their claims. Is your mind too small to tell the difference.

Oh and I do find it rather amusing the claim how the greenhouse effect has been proven yet the effect of carbon in that atmosphere has not. Does anyone here even understand what the greenhouse effect is? carbon is one of the greenhouse gases that traps heat in the atmosphere. it doesnt take a genius to work out what will happen if you massively increase its concentration.

DaveinPerth says:

03:40pm | 21/03/11

@TrueOz -  “think you’ll find plenty of “peer reviewed” style documents from medieval times supporting..etc…”  Really ? Can you quote one ? Love to hear about it !

(Or are you just making stuff up ? )

iansand says:

07:07am | 20/03/11

“In 2008, the Ministry of Science and Technology mandated that 10% of Chinese cars will run on alternative fuels by 2012 and called for 10 billion yuan (US$1.5 billion) in research subsidies over the next three years for research and development of alternative fuel vehicles.”

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KJ09Cb01.html

“TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.

China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html

The people from whom you get your information are lying to you.

Erick says:

07:16am | 20/03/11

Here’s an example of China’s ‘carbon friendly technology’ being installed ‘by the day’.

More than a quarter of China’s new wind turbines are not connected to the grid, thus making them useless.

Cate P says:

11:26am | 20/03/11

Iansand its great that China is PRODUCING wind turbines and solar panels - emission free production too I bet, they are fabulous aren’t they? And the wind turbines they have operating that aren’t connected to the electricity grid - well, they aren’t contributing to anything really are they?  And the new coal fired megasized electricity plants they are going to build to increase their electicity output decommissioning smaller plants - they are going to be emission free too, it is just fantastic, we sure can learn a lot from them.

John A Neve says:

11:53am | 20/03/11

Erik,

Thank you for posting a most interesting link. However, I read it differently to you. The way I read it, the wind generators were constructed faster than the transmission lines. The article suggests that the government is now addressing this oversite.

It matters not which of us is right Erik, the fact remains China is further advanced than Australia in trying to reduce emissions.

iansand says:

01:54pm | 20/03/11

The challenge I was given was to give examples of “China’s ‘carbon friendly technology’”.  This I did by the simple expedient of doing a google search.  If you have ever been to China you will have no doubt that the deficiencies in their grid will be rectified in less time than it would take to have a feasibility study done here.  Those guys build fast.

The problem the scared weird little guys have is that they are being duped by the dishonest sources feeding them their information.

Joan says:

03:09pm | 20/03/11

Yep Chinese the smartest on the block ie the world .....they have 300 coal fired plants>1000MW with plans to build lots more, they have 9 nuclear power stations, plus hydroelectric plants, and churning out windturbines ....and hey presto all done with NO Carbon tax!  China with millions of workers - no guest workers needed -  is positioning itself to grab whats left of manufacturing and jobs from Australia as Unionists scaremonger Australian workers into acceptance of a Carbon Tax. and surrender their jobs to China as Carbon Tax will close down industry after industry just so Australian working family can try to save the world,  The Anglesea Power House at 150MW (compare with China standard >1000MVplants) is hardly a threat to Geelong or the world,... a closure of it and Alcoa moving offshore will have a greater negative impact on Geelong and surrounding industries than any CO2 emitted by the power station….just replicate scenario throughout Australia and watch manufacturing and jobs move offshore.  The Chinese sure have out-smarted Gillard and Unionists on this one,..., you bet they can’t believe their good luck they are just waiting for Gillard to roll out her big carbon Tax on everything so all those coal fired power plants are working at full throttle. Meanwhile thanks to Gillard and Unionists Australia just a quarry and service industry jobs only…... and guess what you won’t even notice a change in the temperature.

Phil says:

12:36pm | 21/03/11

John A Neve and Iansand
China is clearly well in front of the rest of the world in polution and carbon dioxide reductions/clean air quality.
Maybe I was wrong, but when watching the Olympics, was it fog or polution that was said to cause breathing difficulties.
China are also developing Nuclear Power as well.

Erick says:

08:16am | 20/03/11

Alternately, Dave, Australia could use its enormous reserves of uranium and thorium to produce electricity with a far lower carbon footprint.

Fruitloop says:

02:58pm | 20/03/11

Alternatively Eric
Australia could use it’s enormous reserves of red dust and spinifex to produce electricity with no carbon footprint.
And when we run out of spinifex as indeed we will one day, we can start suing fruit-loops to power the next generation of nuclear power plants. Makes as much sense as your comment.

DWGw says:

04:16pm | 20/03/11

Totally agree. Its just a house of cards scheme. Take a look at the co-generation in the sugar industry. Gov interference led to the price of the RECs certificates dropping to the floor and all the inverstment was worthless
Lets get more r&d

stephen says:

03:26pm | 20/03/11

Tell the workers that Alcoa is going to settle for a little less profit that year, and the shareholders are going to have to settle for a little less dividend.
But the workers will still have their jobs, the company will still make a profit, and the shareholders will be comfortable in the knowledge that they can still drive their cars, turn on the air-conditioner, but that they have contributed to the alleviation of a ‘product’ of which their investment is the culprit.

Tom says:

03:25pm | 21/03/11

@stephen,
1. Alcoa will move offshore so they won’t have to settle for less profit.They will still make a profit from China or somewhere further.

2. Shareholders will still get their dividends through Alcoa’s new O/S production and be “.. comfortable in the knowledge that they can still drive their cars, turn on the air-conditioners”.

3. Australian workers however, won’t have jobs unless of course they don’t mind commuting to China or somewhere further.

“Tell the workers that.”

Henry says:

01:25pm | 20/03/11

It’s always amusing to me how right-wing commentators tend to have little access to fullstops and no access to capital letters ...

Just one long ranting stream of semi-consciousness ...

Deb says:

02:37pm | 20/03/11

And its always amusing to me to observe that when people are losing an arguement OR have nothing constructive to say, they immediately attack the persons grammar or spelling.

Sidney ostrailya says:

03:00pm | 20/03/11

@Henry,you are dull in the head

Heinrich says:

03:13pm | 20/03/11

Henry
What they lack in punctuation skills is made up for by the misinformation they cite.
I would say something about their spelling, but that would be “undefensable”

My word says:

09:08am | 20/03/11

No, that’s quite an inaccurate, selective summary of what Jones actually said:

“B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
Full interview, for balance:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Debunked often, this particular distortion, now over a year old.  So, he’s right - at that time the positive trend since 1995 was present, and was then close to the usual measure of statistical significance. The warming trend over longer periods is established, continues, and is clearly signifcant.

More recent work confirms the longer-term trend. It’d be interesting to see how the short-term trend since 1995 looks now with more recent data included, given 2010 was widely measured and agreed to be one of the warmest on recent record.

Should be readily available from a sound source for anyone who wants to check.  Shrill, over the top, selectively distorted 2nd hand reports do not count.

.

James says:

09:36am | 20/03/11

That’s what really irritates me when non-scientists get involved in this issue. They have no understanding of the statistical tools used for analysis and frequently take quotes out of context - Christopher Monckton is a prime example. I still remember people actually contacted the authors of the peer reviewed studies that he had quoted to “prove” there was dissent amongst scientists and the world wasn’t cooling etc. Even they said that he had completely misunderstood or deliberately mislead on what their findings were.

Denny Crane says:

12:11pm | 20/03/11

James, it must annoy you when Ross Garnaut or Tim Flannery pop their head up in the debates.

My word says:

01:45pm | 20/03/11

Garnaut freely notes that his field is economics, and much of his work is to that end   - the economics of a solution. As for climate, he’s well across that field himself, and the papers produced by the Review he headed are the product of a professional team that included experts in that field, and a wide range of submissions from others, likewise.

As for Monckton, James has him taped.

Monckton is a mathematician solely. On the face of it he ought to be immune from making basic interpretative mistakes on the maths of the topic. Too keen by half to find fault,  he has in fact erred on a number of occasions.  Worse, Monckton has been found out overstating his own authority more than once:

1.  giving the impression that he was PM Thatcher’s Scientific Advisor. Well, indeed he was - not as *the* advisor, but as a junior member of that panel for a period from 1982 to 1986 (public record).

2.  giving the impression that he was a Nobel Laureate. This was quickly shown to be a piece of florid exaggeration, based on his membership of the IPCC. He now likes to claim that it was just a joke. Quite.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/

3. giving the impression that he is a member of the House of Lords.
Not so.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton

Northern Steve says:

08:34pm | 20/03/11

Those 800 papers are codswallop.  Last time someone posted this, I selected 3 at random.  One of them could be debunked by a decent high school student, one of them had really nothing to do with climate change, and made such ludicrous claims about ocean acidification that showed no knowledge of ocean chemistry, and one claiming that the steel industry had no emissions was sponsored by the steel industry body.

There is no question that the world was warmer in medieval times, and also in Roman times.  It was also colder in Victorian times.  That’s not news.  The temperature of the world does go up and down due to natural effects.  HOWEVER, we are now putting out enough greenhouse gas emissions to directly affect climate - that is something new.  The fact that we weren’t the cause last time does not mean that we can’t be the cause now.
The 15 years question is disingenuous because it is too short a time frame.  I have no doubt that if you asked the same scientist the same question but over 50 years, the answer would definitely be a significant (in the statistical sense) rise in global temperatures.

James says:

08:59pm | 20/03/11

Denny the issue of climate scientists is not to find the economic solution. We (Although I myself am a mere environmental scientist) are here merely to tell the economists what needs to be done and it is up to them to find a way to achieve it. Its all about sticking to what you know: I know a lot about plant ecology and climate but macroeconomics? nope no more than most people who have graduated from the university of google.

DocBud says:

12:52am | 21/03/11

James, it is not your role to tell the economists or anyone else what needs to be done. At the most, it is your role to tell people what you think are the likely outcomes that may eventuate as a consequence of certain actions based on your understanding of the science. Other scientists will disagree, either completely or partially (my future daughtr-in-law also revels in the title environmental scientist and I am sure she would disagree with you on this topic). It is then the role of others, including economists, to evaluate the information, risk assess, carry out cost-benefit analyses and propose possible solutions.

With AGW, the level of uncertainty makes this process very difficult, and when applied to one minor player in the global economy, practically impossible. Rational people do not do things based on an improbable worst case, they act on expected outcomes with a margin of error based on the degree of uncertainty.

James says:

07:11am | 21/03/11

Actually DocBud is it the role of scientists to tell economists what needs to be done. They tell them what the likely impacts are of climate change, how quickly the problem is occurring and specifically what cuts to emissions need to be made. Tell me how is an economist supposed to understand the physics of how carbon traps heat in the atmosphere and then use that data to work out how much the planet will warm over the next century?

Like I said, I am a mere environmental scientist, NOT a climatologist, so I am by no means an expert in this field. I have however read numerous studies using satellites to measure radiation leaving the planet along the wavelengths associated with carbon dioxide and they have found a marked decline since the 1970s in heat leaving the planet.

You say there is great uncertainness about the impact of a doubling of emissions and Christopher Monckton likes to play on this by choosing the minimum outliers from studies into the impact of a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Its when you look at all these studies graphed out that you realise how misleading he is being, deliberately choosing the figures that suit his agenda. There is no more logic behind him saying a doubling of CO2 will lead to a less than 1oC rise than another outlier that found it could lead to a 10oC rise.

My word says:

07:28am | 21/03/11

“not your role to tell the economists or anyone else what needs to be done” trumpets DocBud, while…. telling James what to do!  On a public opinion blog! Laughable.

“Rational people ... act on expected outcomes with a margin of error based on the degree of uncertainty.” Quite!  And the best example in this context?

The IPCC reports, with their careful, quanitified assessment of the very high certainty that AGW is here and the very likely future impacts - all needing concerted action on carbon emissions. DB could look that up for himself.

Nothing could better illustrate this style of debater: offering up a mix of mudlled thinking, bias, unchecked claims and plain misinformation.

Poptech says:

04:40am | 24/03/11

@ Northern Steve,

Sorry but all those 850 papers are peer-reviewed and they all support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic”.

Just to demonstrate you do not know what you are talking about, all the papers on ocean acidification were published in science journals; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Geology, Geophysical Research Letters, Science and Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. The single cherry picked “steel industry” paper off the list you are talking about is from a peer-reviewed trade journal and is a review paper of climate science written for those in the industry. Implying that is what the list is composed of is grossly misleading and disingenuous.

As L correctly pointed out, there is significant scientific doubt in the peer-reviewed literature.

Knemon says:

10:34am | 20/03/11

Richard @ 08:23am says “wait until the technology is ready to justify the switch to low carbon electricity; and then we pounce! Like a patient tiger, who only has to strike once to make a clean kill.”

So you admit at some stage we do have to act on climate change yet we should sit back and do nothing for now? Surely it would make more economical sense to act now, instead of being left behind? While other industries around the world adapt, you would prefer our industries adapt later at a far greater economical cost than if they acted now, strange indeed.

Major manufacturers in Australia are looking for certainty on this issue not just more political rhetoric.  Alcoa is a classic example.

The longer this debate goes, the more educated our people will become on the issue at hand, they will eventually see Tony Abbott for what he is…a scaremongering alarmist with no initiative or policies of his own, his views change daily, obviously depending on who he is talking to. That is not the type of leadership we desire or deserve in Australia.

Richard says:

05:49pm | 20/03/11

No Knemon, you have it perfectly wrong: the EARLIER we force our industries to go low carbon, the GREATER the economical cost will be.

It makes far more economical economical sense to act later, once technology is mature, and can be implemented relatively cleanly, instead of this torturous, drawn out process of gradually increasing the price of carbon and tightening the screws on Australian industry and Australian families further and further each year.

You and Marles say that Alcoa supports the scheme, but I guarantee they expect a very generous compensation package, as does Rio Tinto, as does BHP, as does Bluescope steel, as does practically every business directly affected, and probably ones indirectly affected as well, as does indeed Australian families~ but its laughable, not everyone can be a winner. Infact they can’t even redistribute as much tax as they collect, because there are considerable investigation, administration and accounting costs that will have to be deducted. So people are going to to worse off full stop.

For nothing. If we wait, no one is worse off, and we will be in a better position to implement the mature technology once it gets developed, because we wouldn’t have wasted our money on the currently inefficient and frankly rather useless infrastructure that is available now. If we act too hastily, we will make a hash of it (something this government is very well experienced in indeed).

Lisa Meredith says:

11:15am | 20/03/11

Dear Ryan,

The proof (to 95% certainty) lies in our observations of the rise in CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere, and the stability of the science of the greenhouse effect that predicts its radiative forcing.

The corroborative evidence lies in the rise in temp of 0.74 degrees C over the 20th century. When placed in the context of the climate history of this planet, coupled with fossil records, we see that this is a very fast rise (about 1300 times faster than the average) and is historically coupled with an increase in the extinction rate and ecological disruption.

Shock Horror says:

12:13pm | 20/03/11

Brisbanemfp @ 08:46 says “Most of the new Republican administrations in those states are moving to repeal any anti Carbon measures that were put in place” - well knock me over with a feather - not the GOP, what a shock…and the GOP equivalent in Australia would be? That’s right, the LNP.  Tea party anyone?

Jo says:

12:43am | 21/03/11

Hear, hear! Sage comments indeed. Why on earth is little Australia forcing the bankrupsy of our industries, the end of our farming, the loss of our standard of living all so that we can feel smug. Sure, we will produce less carbon, but it won’t make a jot of difference globally and our people and country will suffer tremendously.

Lisa Meredith says:

03:56pm | 20/03/11

Dear Cate P,

Natural climate change is a stronger short-term driver than AGW. We need to look at 40 year periods to eliminate the cycles and noise of natural climate change. Even when we look at all the C12, C13, C14 levels, the ocean and atmosphere temps, IR radiation levels at the surface, the tropopause and stratopause, we see a slow trend that confirms the predictions that come from the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle.

Today the debate concerns the speed of the climate response to the CO2 driver (climate sensitivity) and how it will affect microclimates (long term probabilistic weather predictions).

Looking at similar CO2 and temp rises, and fossil records throughout prehistory shows us that the speed of current trends will have an ecological impact, and affect our way of life. Even if being proactive does not even slow AGW down, it puts us in a better position to mitigate and react to some of these impacts.

Gregg says:

04:40pm | 20/03/11

@Lisa,
It could be said there are climate cycles that exceed by far 40 years and tou can look at times the river Murray dried up and the NW passage was a bout open around the beginning of the last century for one cyclic indicator and then there is history of various Ice Age/warming cycles as well.

Is it also not true that some research shows temperature rises preceding CO2 rises.

And all that is not to say we should not find a use for one of a natural resources in a time of abundance and growing many more forests would not be such a bad idea for there is so much defoliation going on.

Lisa Meredith says:

06:36pm | 20/03/11

Dear Gregg,

Yes, this is true. There are long term climate cycles. So we have to keep these in mind as well. We try to put the last 230 years in context with the previous 10 000 years as we emerge from the last ice age. We look to the past to assess what the natural climate change would be today without our emissions.

We also take what we know about the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect to predict what we think current climate response is to AGW. In the end though, with a Control (an identical emission-free earth) we have to make educated guesses as to what that would be.

The mechanism of the carbon cycle explains why T rise can precede CO2 rise. The T rise can be caused by some of the other drivers of T, and this leads to increased amounts of dissolved CO2 leaving warming oceans at a greater rate than the carbon fixing mechanisms can cope with.

Your point about reforestation is perfect.

Lisa Meredith says:

10:14pm | 20/03/11

Dear Gregg,

Correction:

I meant to say:
We also take what we know about the carbon cycle and the greenhouse effect to predict what we think current climate response is to AGW. In the end though, WITHOUT a Control (an identical emission-free earth) we have to make educated guesses as to what that would be.

DocBud says:

11:21am | 20/03/11

Public policy has always been, and always will be, based on the self-interests of the governing party and their chums. Any benefit members of the public may get is largely due to them belonging to a particular group likely to support the governing party in the next election or living in a marginal seat.

In this case, the exercise is primarily about taking money from those least disposed to vote Labor and giving it to those who will happily vote Labor if it gives them money they have not earnt. Unfortunately, the latter will discover, when it is too late, that Labor will have miscalculated the consequences and that we shall all suffer. For some that will be higher living costs, for others it will be having no living. Yet we can all have a warm fuzzy feeling, knowing that we have reduced global warming by…....?

iansand says:

02:01pm | 20/03/11

How much dry land was there when there were no icecaps?  What happened when all that water melted?  Do we have records of what the weather was like back then?  Can you tell me that there were no extreme weather events?

Lisa Meredith says:

04:21pm | 20/03/11

Dear LP42,

Its true, its not unprecedented. We have a pretty good idea of past climate change, including how and why it happened. This is why we are fairly certain we know what increasing CO2 by 122ppm in 230 years will do.

Our current Holocene climate is different to the climate throughout the rest of the history of the planet, but ecologies were also different back then and were adapted to the climate at the time. Natural cyclical climate change happened on average about 1300 times slower than the CO2 increase today, so there is a good chance ecologies today will not have time to adapt.

Being proactive on our own about AGW might not stop it, or even slow it down, but it puts us in a better position to pay for mitigation and adaptation strategies. There may even be a business case for Alcoa to diversify into the renewable energy generation industry.

The development of the renewable energy industry will improve as we begin to take it up. Other industries, such as the computer, car and mobile phone industries illustrate this point.

LP42 says:

09:45pm | 20/03/11

re: iansand

1. “How much dry land was there when there were no icecaps? What happened when all that water melted? Do we have records of what the weather was like back then?”
However much land was in Pangaea (the super-continent) during the Triassic period 250M years ago (quite a bit, if it matters). The polar region during this period was moist and temperate, CO2 was 1750 ppm (4 times current levels) and mean surface temperatures were 3C above current levels. (see Wikipedia: Triassic period). There was also a drop in sea level. The scientific consensus on that is “we don’t know why”.

2. “Can you tell me that there were no extreme weather events?”
Extreme weather events are part and parcel of life on planet Earth (including the Great Oxygenation Event - when rising oxygen levels wiped out a large number of Earth’s inhabitants 2.5B years ago) but for the record: “Pangaea’s large size limited the moderating effect of the global ocean; its continental climate was highly seasonal, with very hot summers and cold winters. It probably had strong, cross-equatorial monsoons.”

So if you’re worried about all the ice melting and flooding the Earth, it can’t happen. There’s not enough ice to do so. The IPCC also state:

IPCC Third Assessment Report; Chapter 11.5.4.3. “Based on a wide-ranging review, Oppenheimer (1998) argues that WAIS [West Antarctic Ice Sheet] could disintegrate within five to seven centuries following a warming of only a few degrees. Such a collapse implies a rate of sea level rise of 10 mm/yr and an average speed-up of the total outflow by at least a factor of 10 (Bentley, 1997, 1998a,b). However, the majority opinion of a recent expert panel reported by Vaughan and Spouge (2001) is that such outflow rates are not attainable. It is, therefore, also plausible that WAIS may not make a significant contribution to sea level rise over time-scales less than a millennium.”

“Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20°C, a situation that has not occurred for at least the last 15 million years (Barker et al., 1999), and which is far more than thought possible under any scenario of climatic change currently under consideration. In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years.”

In other words, it would take 10,000 years and require temperature increases of 20C - a situation not even considered possible under ANY of the IPCC’s modeled scenario’s. Worst case is the WAIS melts - but that will still take at least 1,000 years. Do you really think we’re still going to be driving cars and burning coal in 1,000 - 10,000 years time? We’ll run out of coal and oil long before then.

re: Lisa Meredith

3. “Natural cyclical climate change happened on average about 1300 times slower than the CO2 increase today, so there is a good chance ecologies today will not have time to adapt.”
By that token, the asteroid that wiped out the Dinosaurs - and which caused massive rapid climate change - shouldn’t have given anything a chance to survive. And yet we evolved after that event. The IPCC also refer to “climate surprises”, again Third Assessment Report, The Climate System: an Overview:

“A non-linear system such as the climate system may exhibit rapid climate change as a response to internal processes or rapidly changing external forcing. Because the probability of their occurrence may be small and their predictability limited, they are colloquially referred to as “unexpected events” or “surprises”. The abrupt events that took place during the last glacial cycle are often cited as an example to demonstrate the possibility of such rapid climate change.
[...]
In recent years it was discovered that during the last glacial period large and very rapid temperature variations took place over large parts of the globe, in particular in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. These abrupt events saw temperature changes of many degrees within a human lifetime.”

4. “This is why we are fairly certain we know what increasing CO2 by 122ppm in 230 years will do.”
And I’m fairly certain that in 230 years, we won’t be using oil. Current coal resources are projected to last another 100 - 500 years. Oil is expected to run out, oh, about now. That’s going to put massive upward pressure on oil and coal prices and will, almost quite naturally, force us into other technologies. Much more so than another 5 cents on petrol or another 1c per KW/h on the price of electricity.

iansand says:

07:44am | 21/03/11

LP42 - A millennium is longer than a 3 year electoral cycle, so we can ignore it.  Although that is not quite what Vaughan & Sponge said http://www.springerlink.com/content/u428134536q00138/  It is pretty much “Dunno.  Could happen, might not”.

“Abstract
Complete collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) would raise global sea level by around 5 m, but whether collapse is likely, or even possible, has been `glaciology’s grand unsolved problem’ for more than two decades. Collapse of WAIS may result from readjustments continuing since the last glacial maximum, or more recent climate change, but it is also possible that collapse will result from internal flow instabilities, or not occur at all in the present inter-glacial. Such complexity led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to conclude in its Second Assessment Report that `estimating the likelihood of a collapse during the next century is not yet possible’. However, a refusal by scientists to estimate the risk leaves policy-makers with no sound scientific basis on which to respond to legitimate public concerns. Here we present a discussion of the likelihood of WAIS-collapse, drawing input from an interdisciplinary panel of experts. The results help to summarise the state of scientific knowledge and uncertainty. While the overall opinion of the panel was that WAIS most likely will not collapse in the next few centuries, their uncertainty retains a 5% probability of WAIS causing sea level rise at least 10 mm/year within 200 years. Since this uncertainty reflects both the unpredictability of the physical system and the scientific uncertainty, it will undoubtedly change as a better understanding is established.”

Lisa Meredith says:

10:22am | 21/03/11

Dear LP24,

I specifically said “natural climate change” to differentiate it from the Chicxulub Impact. Even though it was technically natural, it was a catastrophic event caused by external forces.

During the last glacial period, there were T changes of 1 degree per 1000 years about 15 000 years ago, leading up to the Holocene Maximum (still 10 times slower than today). But I did specifically write the word “average” to use the middle of the bell curve of natural drift.

Your point about peak oil is a good one, and it may well be our saving grace. But coal is the thing. We have been increasing our use, so the first thing to do is to stabilise consumption rates.

DWGw says:

04:32pm | 20/03/11

I suppose you are sitting in the dark tonight and walking to work tomorrow?
We can only live with what we have and what R&D allows

Michael K says:

11:24am | 21/03/11

DWGw, you’ll need to elaborate on your reply. But to answer your question, I didn’t sit in the dark last night and I didn’t walk to work today. I’m not a Green, and I fully understand the practical element of supplying energy cost-effectively (I thought my original jab at the Green’s might have cleared that up). However, this doesn’t mean R&D can’t push the envelope and invigorate the next industrial revolution. Recent talk about developments in Cold Fusion technology (whether or not the claims are honest and true remain to be seen) point to rapid development in the green energy realm. Despite your ambiguous reply, I stand-by my central argument - unless you can point me to a paper which refutes the argument that money and manpower has little impact on research outcomes in the renewable energies sector.

Lisa Meredith says:

04:50pm | 20/03/11

Dear Realist,

The greenhouse effect explains how greenhouse gases increase the thermal kinetic energy of the atmosphere. This is studied by measuring all of its flow-on effects, not just temperature. The others include: atmospheric expansion, latent heat of melting ice, net latent heat of evaporating water minus water condensation, increasing humidity (holding increased water vapour above the ground) and the warming and expansion of oceans.

All of these effects, by using some of this energy to power them, have a cooling effect, and none of these effects happen at a smooth uniform rate, so the atmosphere will heat and cool in response in the short term.

In the meanwhile, the other drivers of natural climate change, such as the sunspot cycle and ENSO, both of which are stronger short term drivers than AGW, will continue to have their effect.

Its prudent to bear in mind that, ignoring our future emissions, our past emissions from 1780 to today will continue to play out for at least the next century.

Jay Santos says:

11:33am | 21/03/11

“...The greenhouse effect explains how greenhouse gases increase the thermal kinetic energy of the atmosphere…”

Yet you still cannot provide any scientific causal link between CO2 and temperature.

None.

Neither can the IPCC, NASA, GISS or the Hadley centre.

Their self-serving theoretical models cannot even replicate the historic record.

Lisa Meredith says:

02:56pm | 21/03/11

Dear Jay Santos,

What is temperature in a gas? What is the property of a gas that we measure when we measure its temperature?

It is the speed of the molecules: the velocity at which they travel between collisions with other molecules in the gas.

The thermal kinetic energy of the gas is a function of the mass (which doesn’t change) and the velocity of the molecules. When two molecules collide and one them is vibrating, the velocity of both after the collision is increased. So the thermal kinetic energy of the two molecules has increased. The temperature of the gas has increased.

This is the greenhouse effect.

Lisa Meredith says:

07:50pm | 20/03/11

Dear Wayne,

Water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas in terms of contribution, but it is highly temperature dependant. If the temp rises humidity goes up, and if the temp falls, humidity goes down. And its pretty much instantaneous. Once the air reaches dewpoint, the water condenses out.

CO2 both in the air and in the oceans, however, does not have such a mechanism to be removed quickly. It relies on fixing methods such as photosynthesis and mineral formation. This not only takes time in itself, but these mechanisms take time to adapt and increase their capacity.

Photosynthesis fixing adapts by increasing in biomass (in numbers of lifeforms): not so much in photosynthetic rate. Plants, algae and phytoplankton can increase their rate, but only up to a point. It is limited by availability of nutrients, water and light, and genetic factors such as growth rate, metabolic rate, leaf size and overall size.

Thommo the Enlightened says:

10:05am | 21/03/11

The alarmistas will never ever talk actual numbers - they can’t win with anything but rhetoric and appeals to emotion (and their favourite tactic, appeals to authority - which completely backfires in this day and age where no one has respect for authority). they are the mental level of kindy children.

Squeeze the Middle says:

09:35am | 21/03/11

Sounding a bit desperate there Glenn.  So where IS the data?  It’s been 13 years since Kyoto. Has nobody put the data together yet in all that time? Who ARE these mythical big polluters?

You may be right about the LNP.  But if the idealogically corrupt/compromised/hypocritical BS artists on the other side of the house are left to run free then it wouldn’t alienate the middle and hence fertilise the ground for your opponents.

My word says:

06:22am | 21/03/11

“Not ‘carbon’ intensive, it is carbon dioxide intensive”

A completely empty distinction.  “Carbon” in this context is simply the well known blanket term for the whole suite of man-made AGW gases (CO2 CH4 N2O etc ) expressed as CO2 -equivalents.

Widely used. Well understood by every one with more than a passing awareness of the topic. In common use - see, eg, Garnaut.

Razor says:

05:09pm | 21/03/11

My word - it is not an empty distinction it is pure political spin.

Calling it a Carbon tax is pure spin trying to make the unwashed masses think of dirty filthy horrible particulate pollution – when really they are trying limit emmissions of colourless and odourless GreenHouse Gases of which CO2 is predominant but includes other gases – not just carbon based ones.

My word says:

05:52am | 22/03/11

Who on earth told you that?

Its simply nonsense.

The information is freely available to everyone.

Whoever told you otherwise is not being honest.

My word says:

12:30pm | 21/03/11

What the IPCC actually says:

“Confidence
The level of confidence in the correctness of a result is expressed in this report, using a standard terminology defined as follows:
[...]
Very high confidence At least 9 out of 10 chance of being correct
High confidence About 8 out of 10 chance
Medium confidence About 5 out of 10 chance
Low confidence About 2 out of 10 chance
Very low confidence Less than 1 out of 10 chance”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/annexessglossary-a-d.html

“Likelihood
The likelihood of an occurrence, an outcome or a result, where this can be estimated probabilistically, is expressed in IPCC reports using a standard terminology defined as follows:
[...]
Virtually certain >99% probability of occurrence
Very likely >90% probability
Likely >66% probability
More likely than not >50% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely <33% probability
Very unlikely <10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely <1% probability”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/annexessglossary-j-p.html

“Uncertainty
An expression of the degree to which a value (e.g., the future state of the climate system) is unknown. Uncertainty can result from lack of information or from disagreement about what is known or even knowable. It may have many types of sources, from quantifiable errors in the data to ambiguously defined concepts or terminology, or uncertain projections of human behaviour. Uncertainty can therefore be represented by quantitative measures, for example, a range of values calculated by various models, or by qualitative statements, for example, reflecting the judgement of a team of experts (see Moss and Schneider, 2000; Manning et al., 2004).”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/annexessglossary-r-z.html

So the IPCC reports
a)  use consistent graded terms for confidence in any point, and
b) publish the meaning or statistical confidence for each.
TTEs contrived meanings are a distortion of the IPCCs text.

My word says:

05:04pm | 21/03/11

TTE claims “here’s their full statement [warming of the climate etc etc…] but it says nothing about humans being the cause”.

He’s flat wrong.

Here’s the relevant IPCC summary point that he’s artfully leaving out.

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

The IPCC papers have far more to say than TTE cares to show.

The Exex summary makes both these and other far-ranging points clear:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms1.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html etc

All backed up by the detail of the main papers, like
Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ts.html

If we’re going to have a robust debate, let it be on actual information, not unenlightening misinformation.

Lisa Meredith says:

05:16pm | 21/03/11

Dear Thommo the Enlightened,

The greenhouse effect predicts the rise in thermal kinetic energy (TKE) of the climate system (air and oceans), of which temp is only one part.

To measure the rest includes measuring thermal expansion of the atmosphere and oceans, net latent heat of the hydrological cycle - both water and ice, TKE of maintaining increased humidity and temp rises of both the atmosphere and the oceans.

For example: a warming atmosphere is an expanding one. But expansion cools a gas. So the total TKE increase must measure both the temp rise and the expansion.

Also, AGW does not imply that all natural climate change has stopped and the rise in GHGs is the only driver. In fact, short tem cycles such as the sunspot cycle and ENSA are stronger drivers of natural climate change than AGW. AGW is a long term effect that will exacerbate natural climate through things like increased humidity and ocean temps.

Lisa Meredith says:

04:36pm | 21/03/11

Dear Ryan,

The greenhouse effect describes how raising the thermal kinetic energy (TKE) of a gas occurs over billions of trillions of molecular collisions over centuries. It is not instantaneous.

Measuring this increase in TKE involves measuring all the parts of the expression of this energy, including warming and thermal expansion of the air and the oceans, increase in humidity and the net latent heat of the water cycle.

For example, a warming gas wants to expand. If it does so, it cools, and yet, the TKE of the gas has still increased even though the temp has barely moved. The increase in TKE is seen in the extra molecular momentum required to keep all the gas molecules further apart.

In the meantime, the solar cycle is a stronger driver of temp in the short term than AGW.

Ryan says:

07:53pm | 21/03/11

@Lisa: I have heard some whoppers in my time but that one really rates up there.
NASA satellites measuring the global temperature trends (if you had bothered to open the link) will show you from 1979 until now with no discernible differences. The NASA climate scientist behind this data is showing you the FACTS and you still won’t accept it.
Now if you are going to start trying to trot out the fully debunked GISS temperatures then we will have to have a hearty laugh and I will point you to a 14 year old who debunked these merely by visiting some of these recording points and their purposeful placements next to air-conditioners, tennis courts, roads etc..
The fact is that hot air rises Lisa, in a greenhouse where is most of the heat trapped Lisa? If the planet was indeed warming, the tropospheric temperatures would be the first to show this. It does not. What it clearly shows is a blatant divergence from the CO2 concentration levels, AGW debunked right there.
As for your mention of the solar cycle driving temperature, really, a flat earth alarmist now pointing towards solar activity as an explanation for warming. Sounds like you don’t believe the alarmist propaganda anymore.

Ryan D'nier says:

08:38pm | 21/03/11

Ryan
The science is settled.
The sooner you accept it, the sooner you and your conservative mates can have a seat at the table.
dolt.

My word says:

05:47am | 22/03/11

The Graph:
That little 30-year snippet is an excellent illustration….of the amount of noise in so short a run of data. That’s all.

It doesnt - in fact it cannot - show a reversal in rising temps.  If you ran an appropriate long-run averager over it it, you’d find the rising trend still there - you can see it by eye alone - though as Prof Jones has pointed out, on such short runs, it’s significance is unlikely to be great.

Critics of the science would be better advised to inform themselves much better:  on the data, the anaylsis, and the conclusions. Anyone can do it and its free. All at the IPCC.

Lisa Meredith says:

09:45am | 22/03/11

Dear Ryan,

Where in the theory of AGW does it say that each successive decade should be warmer than the last? Given that natural climate change drivers such as the solar cycle played a part in climate change before the Industrial Revolution, what is now rendering them completely ineffective? Why would they suddenly stop working?

Where in the theory of the greenhouse effect does it say that temperature is the only indicator of the level of thermal kinetic energy in the atmosphere? Where does it say that the rise in CO2 should have an instantaneous effect on atmospheric thermal kinetic energy levels?

My word says:

09:58am | 22/03/11

LM,

Tonic to read your civil, patient and telling posts.

Thank you

Lisa Meredith says:

08:08am | 25/03/11

Dear Obob,

Which part of AGW is mythical? (Remember, there is no such thing as 100% proof in science.)

Is it the carbon cycle? This has been proven and predicts a rise in atmospheric CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

Is it the greenhouse effect? This has been proven, and predicts a rise in atmospheric thermal energy as CO2 levels rise.

Is it the predictive climate models? These are based on the models that describe the climate change of the past, but when predicting future impact, can only be proven in hindsight. Nevertheless, because they rather accurately model past climate change (and the rise in thermal kinetic energy over the 20th century) they are not mythical.

Regarding coal exports: I would have thought that the idea would be to reduce domestic and international demand for our coal, rather than refusing to supply it. To prevent recession or depression, wouldn’t we need to replace the coal industry with something else? Say, for example, domestic renewables manufacture?

Lisa Meredith says:

12:34pm | 27/03/11

Dear Obob,

Where does it say that CO2 is the only driver of temperature change?

Neither climate science, studies of prehistoric climate nor AGW says that CO2 is all there is, that I can find.

Finally, given that there is ongoing natural climate change, how does this preclude the future impacts of the 33% rise in CO2?

Lisa Meredith says:

03:34pm | 28/03/11

Dear Helen,

Its important to remember that climate sensitivity is a measure of long wave infrared photon availability, which determines the proportion of excited CO2 molecules, and how the resulting increased atmospheric thermal kinetic energy is realised: as ocean and atmospheric warming and expansion, increased atmospheric humidity, and the net latent heat of water evaporation/condensation and ice melting/freezing.

So: it is a measure of how much CO2 of the total is doing the warming, and the ratio of the various components of the attendant rise in atmospheric thermal kinetic energy. In other words, how long it will take and what are the forces available to change climate (such as increased humidity and ice loss).

It does not speak to the potential warming available based on the amount of CO2 present, but instead determines how long it will take.