CARBON TAX-It's Started!
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church,
ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about,
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock,
and crops, and drought,
As it had done for years.
"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad."
"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
And several more verses by John O'Brien
In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church,
ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about,
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock,
and crops, and drought,
As it had done for years.
"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad."
"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
And several more verses by John O'Brien
Seasonally Adjusted
And as is so common amongst supporters of AGW, any person who has an opinion that is different to theirs is summarily dismissed with personal attacks and dissing of qualifications.
Grandpa Aerotart
So TQ how much will the temperature be effected by this carbon dioxide tax?
When it transitions to an ETS how will people be compensated when the money is all being sent offshore?
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian
What chance the ETS won't be scammed BIG time - after all it already is with people being dispossessed of their land in Africa by corrupt regimes pandering to companies who want to plant carbon abatement trees but don't want to pay for the land.
This is madness
When it transitions to an ETS how will people be compensated when the money is all being sent offshore?
Cookies must be enabled | The Australian
What chance the ETS won't be scammed BIG time - after all it already is with people being dispossessed of their land in Africa by corrupt regimes pandering to companies who want to plant carbon abatement trees but don't want to pay for the land.
This is madness
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lodown, I spent quite some time trying to figure out how to respond to your long post. From a purely scientific perspective, it would take a very, very long Pprune post to thoroughly address the falsehoods, misconceptions, and irrelevancies in it.
Statements like this:
indicate very strongly to me that
But if you want to keep believing that temps are declining, sea level is dropping, and more glaciers are springing up everywhere, please be my guest.
Statements like this:
There are several other explanations for which research is ongoing and which are gaining in viability each day as anthropogenic global warming loses (scientific) support.
- you do not read any articles or papers from genuine scientific journals at all
- you do not keep up with any science news through popular science media (as opposed to the junk in the mainstream press).
But if you want to keep believing that temps are declining, sea level is dropping, and more glaciers are springing up everywhere, please be my guest.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea levels from University of Colorado as you recommended:
Did you check before you posted that recommendation? The sea level has been rising steadily ever since the last ice age. It certainly hasn’t accelerated like the pro-warmers like to think. And now it’s descending. Go figure!
Monthly mean global surface temperature heading down too:
...and this from a website under James Hansen's control.
Sea Surface Temperatures. Current global sea surface temperatures are between 0.1 and 0.2C below average:
For what it’s worth, there’s a trend line included. Admittedly, it doesn’t tell you much, if anything, because if you start a trend line in the 1940’s the trend is up. However, the trend for the last decade or so is down. This is counter to global warming predictions. CO2 concentration has been going up since the 1700’s. Thank God it did go up, because if it continued down, we wouldn’t be here discussing it. The climb in CO2 doesn’t explain any of the cooling periods that have occurred in between then and now either. (Perhaps there is something else at play, but the warmers gloss over these periods with no satisfactory explanation.) One huge ongoing contention is that temperatures have been rising and falling ahead of CO2 concentrations, perhaps indicating that temperature determines CO2 concentration, NOT the other way round.
Re: other research. The catastrophic global warming models use the standard solar model (SSM) as the solar heat input. The sun’s output varies and research is indicating that the variance is having a greater effect than expected. In addition, CERN has recently proven through experimentation that cosmic rays have an influence on cloud formation. How much or how little is not known at this stage. It may be significant and it might not be, but that’s one of how many unknown factors not taken into account on the models? The cloud input into the models is extremely rudimentary. The modelers guessed and fed water vapour calculations into the models as a positive feedback. That research is ongoing. Spencer has satellite records indicating the earth sheds heat at far greater amounts than the pro-warmers assert. Dressler countered with his own calculations, but while minimizing the Spencer result, it still supported Spencer's initial conclusions. Research is ongoing there too. Even more; the pro-warmers' rely on reflected long-wave radiation for their predictions and the entire earth as a blackbody absorber. Water doesn't absorb reflected LWIR at nearly the extent that land does. Further, water cools more by evaporation than by radiation and this has been glossed over in calculations as well. Considering 71% of the earth's surface is water, some recalculations are in order.
What I’m getting at here is that AGW as a result of CO2 is certainly not proven. Thanks to Al Gore and loads of press coverage on a “fabricated” global catastrophe, an IPCC loaded with report writers employed by and linked to the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, many people seem to think it is proven and then one of their arguments to skeptics is a demand to “prove it’s not happening”. WTF! (What would you think of a report supporting unconstrained oil drilling in Sydney Harbour authored by employees from BP or Shell?)
Meanwhile, thanks to the IPCC and Al Gore, global warming has been politicized. The ALP is instituting a tax for political reasons and for nothing else. Global warming is an excuse. This is a tax that will extract more money from the population’s pockets; in a very basic way meaning the less discretionary income those people have to spend on goods and services. Billions are going overseas. And many people expect to have business as usual?
Further: it's the affect that the CO2 tax will have on future power production and development that is of significant concern. The tax demonises CO2. The world's population has grown by 4 billion in the last 50 years. The availability of cheap, reliable and plentiful power supplies has been an essential component in the advance of living standards (and concurrent supply of food resources) in developed nations. Likewise, a common denominator in underdeveloped nations is the lack of cheap, reliable and plentiful power supplies.
The CO2 tax, if left unchanged, will eventually send Australia backwards and IMO I see no other recourse than having it amended in due course. Despite wishful thinking, renewable energy sources (as considered by the Greens) are not cheap, or reliable, or plentiful (24/7) and unlikely to be so for several generations at least, if ever. They supplement current energy supplies, but only do so at an economically acceptable rate thanks to unsustainable government subsidies. Coal power plants (the backbone of Australia's energy supply) are slated to be priced or legislated out of the market. Without a nuclear option, there is nothing else. Those individuals and corporations that can do so, will shift to solar or wind and put up with the inconveniences of the vagaries of supply.
Those who have no choice and rely on a consistent and readily available power supply (medium and heavy manufacturing) and who can export their workforce needs, will do so. Those individuals and organisations that are stuck with increased costs (aviation, trucking, construction, etc.) will have no other option but to try and pass on increased costs to the consumer. All the time, Australia's industries will be competing with evermore nimble overseas competitors taking advantage of something that Australia won't have: cheap, reliable, plentiful power supplies.
Australia has jumped into the deep end of the pond when all other developed nations are pulling back. The outcome will not be pleasant and the next government is going to be hamstrung either way: in trying to wind the legislation back, or in trying to lessen its impact. Just remember which political parties put Australia in this predicament.
Did you check before you posted that recommendation? The sea level has been rising steadily ever since the last ice age. It certainly hasn’t accelerated like the pro-warmers like to think. And now it’s descending. Go figure!
Monthly mean global surface temperature heading down too:
...and this from a website under James Hansen's control.
Sea Surface Temperatures. Current global sea surface temperatures are between 0.1 and 0.2C below average:
For what it’s worth, there’s a trend line included. Admittedly, it doesn’t tell you much, if anything, because if you start a trend line in the 1940’s the trend is up. However, the trend for the last decade or so is down. This is counter to global warming predictions. CO2 concentration has been going up since the 1700’s. Thank God it did go up, because if it continued down, we wouldn’t be here discussing it. The climb in CO2 doesn’t explain any of the cooling periods that have occurred in between then and now either. (Perhaps there is something else at play, but the warmers gloss over these periods with no satisfactory explanation.) One huge ongoing contention is that temperatures have been rising and falling ahead of CO2 concentrations, perhaps indicating that temperature determines CO2 concentration, NOT the other way round.
Re: other research. The catastrophic global warming models use the standard solar model (SSM) as the solar heat input. The sun’s output varies and research is indicating that the variance is having a greater effect than expected. In addition, CERN has recently proven through experimentation that cosmic rays have an influence on cloud formation. How much or how little is not known at this stage. It may be significant and it might not be, but that’s one of how many unknown factors not taken into account on the models? The cloud input into the models is extremely rudimentary. The modelers guessed and fed water vapour calculations into the models as a positive feedback. That research is ongoing. Spencer has satellite records indicating the earth sheds heat at far greater amounts than the pro-warmers assert. Dressler countered with his own calculations, but while minimizing the Spencer result, it still supported Spencer's initial conclusions. Research is ongoing there too. Even more; the pro-warmers' rely on reflected long-wave radiation for their predictions and the entire earth as a blackbody absorber. Water doesn't absorb reflected LWIR at nearly the extent that land does. Further, water cools more by evaporation than by radiation and this has been glossed over in calculations as well. Considering 71% of the earth's surface is water, some recalculations are in order.
What I’m getting at here is that AGW as a result of CO2 is certainly not proven. Thanks to Al Gore and loads of press coverage on a “fabricated” global catastrophe, an IPCC loaded with report writers employed by and linked to the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace, many people seem to think it is proven and then one of their arguments to skeptics is a demand to “prove it’s not happening”. WTF! (What would you think of a report supporting unconstrained oil drilling in Sydney Harbour authored by employees from BP or Shell?)
Meanwhile, thanks to the IPCC and Al Gore, global warming has been politicized. The ALP is instituting a tax for political reasons and for nothing else. Global warming is an excuse. This is a tax that will extract more money from the population’s pockets; in a very basic way meaning the less discretionary income those people have to spend on goods and services. Billions are going overseas. And many people expect to have business as usual?
Further: it's the affect that the CO2 tax will have on future power production and development that is of significant concern. The tax demonises CO2. The world's population has grown by 4 billion in the last 50 years. The availability of cheap, reliable and plentiful power supplies has been an essential component in the advance of living standards (and concurrent supply of food resources) in developed nations. Likewise, a common denominator in underdeveloped nations is the lack of cheap, reliable and plentiful power supplies.
The CO2 tax, if left unchanged, will eventually send Australia backwards and IMO I see no other recourse than having it amended in due course. Despite wishful thinking, renewable energy sources (as considered by the Greens) are not cheap, or reliable, or plentiful (24/7) and unlikely to be so for several generations at least, if ever. They supplement current energy supplies, but only do so at an economically acceptable rate thanks to unsustainable government subsidies. Coal power plants (the backbone of Australia's energy supply) are slated to be priced or legislated out of the market. Without a nuclear option, there is nothing else. Those individuals and corporations that can do so, will shift to solar or wind and put up with the inconveniences of the vagaries of supply.
Those who have no choice and rely on a consistent and readily available power supply (medium and heavy manufacturing) and who can export their workforce needs, will do so. Those individuals and organisations that are stuck with increased costs (aviation, trucking, construction, etc.) will have no other option but to try and pass on increased costs to the consumer. All the time, Australia's industries will be competing with evermore nimble overseas competitors taking advantage of something that Australia won't have: cheap, reliable, plentiful power supplies.
Australia has jumped into the deep end of the pond when all other developed nations are pulling back. The outcome will not be pleasant and the next government is going to be hamstrung either way: in trying to wind the legislation back, or in trying to lessen its impact. Just remember which political parties put Australia in this predicament.
Last edited by Lodown; 28th Oct 2011 at 19:51.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lodown, you might fool others into thinking you understand what you're scientifically arguing by baffling them with BS, but it doesn't fool me, because unlike yourself who seems to cut & paste arguments from Googling (let me guess - WattsUpWithThat? Some other personal blog?), I do actually read science articles written in real science publications by real scientists, as well as several modern planetary physics textbooks.
For example, your earlier statement of "CO2 absorbs longwave radiation only at specific wavelengths" is what I would call a "factoid". Yes, it's true, and no, it's not relevant to your argument. Saying that to anyone who knows anything about gas absorption spectra is like telling a LAME "hey mate, did you realise that if you tighten a nut too much, you can over-torque it?" and wondering why he looks at you like you've just called him a moron.
Regarding your sea level argument: You really need to read the narrative before you post chart links. If you do that, you will get some perspective on why the chart has a negative blip at the end, but otherwise shows absolutely nothing but steadily rising sea levels.
Regarding your global surface temperatures: Arguing a trend using monthly temperatures is like arguing the Qantas share price is well and truly on the rebound because it was up one cent yesterday. There is nothing - nothing - in long term data trends which supports your argument.
It is called "natural variability" and is discussed at considerable length by climate scientists. It is a phenomenon that is common in noisy data, even when that data shows a clear and pronounced trend over time. Why these small variations occur (usually over a period of about a decade) is not fully understood, but that doesn't mean the broader picture is invalid. This is a classic "Argument from the Gaps", a bit like saying "ah well, the Earth has wobbles in its orbit that we can't explain, therefore orbital mechanics is under a cloud of uncertainty".
Then you rabbit on about cloud input and Roy Spencer's work as if it's some big secret that cloud input is not yet fully understood, and even worse, as if it is considered the solitary or even predominant climate feedback! Yet you fail to mention that Spencer's latest research paper he managed to get published in an obscure 4th tier journal was so bad that the editor of the journal subsequently resigned, embarrassed that the editorial and review process had allowed such rubbish into print. Spencer's modelling, in the words of another prominent scientist, "produced the desired results only if you input variables which bore no actual resemblance to reality". And yes, he used his own modelling! Almost exclusively. So apparently that's a big no-no and modelling is flawed......unless a sceptical scientist uses it, in which case it's fine.
You talk of Spencer as if he is the only scientist in the world who uses satellite records, however it is true that Spencer is famous in the scientific community for gratuitously screwing up his satellite data analysis years ago by failing to account for orbital decay and then inadvertently changing a plus sign to a minus sign during data crunching, magically showing tropospheric cooling when it was actually slightly warming!
And I'm not even going to address the last 2/3 of your post which is just a political diatribe, other than to say I think it's clear why you're a "sceptic", and it obviously has lots more to do with politics than understanding science.
For example, your earlier statement of "CO2 absorbs longwave radiation only at specific wavelengths" is what I would call a "factoid". Yes, it's true, and no, it's not relevant to your argument. Saying that to anyone who knows anything about gas absorption spectra is like telling a LAME "hey mate, did you realise that if you tighten a nut too much, you can over-torque it?" and wondering why he looks at you like you've just called him a moron.
Regarding your sea level argument: You really need to read the narrative before you post chart links. If you do that, you will get some perspective on why the chart has a negative blip at the end, but otherwise shows absolutely nothing but steadily rising sea levels.
Regarding your global surface temperatures: Arguing a trend using monthly temperatures is like arguing the Qantas share price is well and truly on the rebound because it was up one cent yesterday. There is nothing - nothing - in long term data trends which supports your argument.
The climb in CO2 doesn’t explain any of the cooling periods that have occurred in between then and now either. (Perhaps there is something else at play, but the warmers gloss over these periods with no satisfactory explanation.)
Then you rabbit on about cloud input and Roy Spencer's work as if it's some big secret that cloud input is not yet fully understood, and even worse, as if it is considered the solitary or even predominant climate feedback! Yet you fail to mention that Spencer's latest research paper he managed to get published in an obscure 4th tier journal was so bad that the editor of the journal subsequently resigned, embarrassed that the editorial and review process had allowed such rubbish into print. Spencer's modelling, in the words of another prominent scientist, "produced the desired results only if you input variables which bore no actual resemblance to reality". And yes, he used his own modelling! Almost exclusively. So apparently that's a big no-no and modelling is flawed......unless a sceptical scientist uses it, in which case it's fine.
You talk of Spencer as if he is the only scientist in the world who uses satellite records, however it is true that Spencer is famous in the scientific community for gratuitously screwing up his satellite data analysis years ago by failing to account for orbital decay and then inadvertently changing a plus sign to a minus sign during data crunching, magically showing tropospheric cooling when it was actually slightly warming!
And I'm not even going to address the last 2/3 of your post which is just a political diatribe, other than to say I think it's clear why you're a "sceptic", and it obviously has lots more to do with politics than understanding science.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Flight LeVeLs
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fence sitter
Gents.
For sometime now I have been of the belief that climate change is real, however I was never of the belief that it was the actions of humans that were causing its acceleration. The planet heats up, cools down and oceans rise and fall. It is just a natural cycle, no?
Prompted by the recent introduction of the dreaded carbon tax and one too many heated discussions I decided to do some un biased research into the data and review my beliefs.
I must say since doing this I have swung, and not by placing my watch in a bowl..
It took 1700 years for someone to silence the sceptics by physically proving the world was round after it had been calculated mathematically in 240BC.
I would encourage anyone who is sceptical to do as I did, switch on the lights and have a good look around. Anyone can take text out of context and quote figures which support their arguments whilst disregarding all others. But at the end of the day who is that helping and where will that type of mentality lead us?
For sometime now I have been of the belief that climate change is real, however I was never of the belief that it was the actions of humans that were causing its acceleration. The planet heats up, cools down and oceans rise and fall. It is just a natural cycle, no?
Prompted by the recent introduction of the dreaded carbon tax and one too many heated discussions I decided to do some un biased research into the data and review my beliefs.
I must say since doing this I have swung, and not by placing my watch in a bowl..
It took 1700 years for someone to silence the sceptics by physically proving the world was round after it had been calculated mathematically in 240BC.
I would encourage anyone who is sceptical to do as I did, switch on the lights and have a good look around. Anyone can take text out of context and quote figures which support their arguments whilst disregarding all others. But at the end of the day who is that helping and where will that type of mentality lead us?
Last edited by BoeingBoi; 29th Oct 2011 at 06:48.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
…because unlike yourself who seems to cut & paste arguments from Googling…
I’m not trying to fool anyone. I just kicked your soapbox from beneath your feet and you don’t like it. Get over it!
So, is the sea level rising or falling? You said it would have made for a long post for you to have included the appropriate graph, so I linked it for you. Now you don’t like the results.
…but otherwise shows absolutely nothing but steadily rising sea levels.
If Qantas shares went up an average of one cent a day for 10 years, then I think I’d be justified in saying this was a trend. Temperatures have been trending down for 10 years. Not long, I know, but if you want to use long term data trends, then let’s start the trend line from the period around the Medieval Warm Period and see how we’re still trending down. Why is this ten year period important? Answer: Because the pro-AGWers make no allowance for any decrease in their forecasts. The world is supposed to be on a rocket climb to the heights of destruction by now. That hockey stick that you put your faith in is obviously wrong, which impacts the entire premise of CO2 caused global warming. If the predictions are wrong, then something is wrong with the model, right? I don’t have a problem with modelling. The data used in this case is either incomplete, wrong, or both and obviously so. It needs more work.
You can’t argue that a rise in global temperatures is caused by human production of CO2, but any decrease in global temperatures is caused by natural variability. That’s an admission that natural variability must also play a role in increasing temperatures. Once again, the global warmers are placing bets both ways and claiming a victory on the outcome whether it be heads or tails. It rained again in Australia after a drought that was not supposed to end. England is still getting snow. New York has just had one of the earliest snowfalls on record. Doesn't stop the pro-warmers announcing a predictive victory.
BTW, what do you regard as a suitable time period of descending or stagnant temperatures before we see a rise again and a renewed faith in AGW? I see on a few websites that 10 years has already been extended to 15 years and now to 17 years. What do the pro-AGW scientists know that you don’t? The truth is that this period of descending/stagnant temperatures is embarrassing for the entire AGW hypothesis. It’s ruining political influence everywhere except Australia where the science might not be settled, but the legislation is.
As for the last 2/3rds of my post: I was trying to keep somewhat on the topic of the original thread. Can I return to reading my fake science articles written in unreal science publications by unreal scientists, as well as several ancient planetary physics textbooks now? I might include this fact on my business cards. Someday, someone, somewhere might be in awe, but I doubt it.
Last edited by Lodown; 30th Oct 2011 at 12:36.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: AU
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't believe how hard this is for some people.
Take this example: You get up and turn the heater (the sun) up in your house (earth), and at the same time your grandmother(people) farts. Soon after, the house get hot! Do you blame your grandmother?
I am not going to argue, we are all grownups (I think anyway), and as such should be able to do our own research.
Also, to the people out there that think we could power Australia, or any country for that matter, by wind, solar, thermal, farting or any other crap, please tell me how. Include how much land space is needed and how you going to manage the load on the grid in your plan.
Take this example: You get up and turn the heater (the sun) up in your house (earth), and at the same time your grandmother(people) farts. Soon after, the house get hot! Do you blame your grandmother?
I am not going to argue, we are all grownups (I think anyway), and as such should be able to do our own research.
Also, to the people out there that think we could power Australia, or any country for that matter, by wind, solar, thermal, farting or any other crap, please tell me how. Include how much land space is needed and how you going to manage the load on the grid in your plan.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Markdem
I can't believe how hard this is for some people. Take this example: You get up and turn the heater (the sun) up in your house (earth), and at the same time your grandmother(people) farts. Soon after, the house get hot! Do you blame your grandmother?
Do you seriously believe climate scientists are so stupid that they don't actually know what the sun is doing? They have not yet realised that the sun could be a factor in planetary temperature? They are still puzzling over why Mercury is so hot and Neptune is cold? If your house warms up in a way that you weren't expecting, you'd go and check the heater wouldn't you? In this case you would observe that the heater setting is actually turned down slightly, but the house is still warming according to your sensitive thermometer.
OK Granny farted, but this is a mere smelly distraction.
What you didn't realise is that granny is obsessed with pink batts. She has been installing extra layers of pink batts in your ceiling. More than what you need. She gets them dirt cheap from the manufacturer. Naughty granny. Now you have a problem. If she doesn't stop, your house will continue to warm and it will become quite uncomfortable. The ice in your Campari & Lemonade will melt and you hate that. Your new lounge gets sweat stains after just 10 minutes of lying on it. Sure, there are some beneficial consequences too. The meat from your freezer defrosts much quicker and you don't need to microwave defrost it anymore, but overall, the situation in your house becomes a right royal pain and you wish the temperature would just go back to what it was normally - the nice comfy situation you were used to. You might want to stop granny putting up those pink batts, eh? 
Well this is what climate scientists did. They first suspected the heater was turned up. But guess what? It isn't. They sent up very sensitive satellites to measure the output of that heater just like your air conditioning mechanic can measure the output of your reverse cycle ducted air. It wasn't turned up at all. While the heater is the source of the heat, something is not letting it escape like it used to. The scientists were even more curious. Can we check what heat is coming in versus what heat is escaping? Yep, we have the technology to do that fairly accurately. Lo and behold the scientists have found that more is coming in than is going out.
The only significant thing that has changed in your house, after an extensive inspection by building inspectors, is the extra layer of pink batts. Your house can adjust naturally to a certain extent. Some of this extra heat is lost through the floor, and the walls. They're not 100% certain exactly how much, but they know it can only be a limited amount which they are currently trying to accurately calculate and measure, but ultimately it probably doesn't matter because your house is still warming anyway.
Now there are some sceptics out there. Some think the temperature measurements are just wrong, even though 6 different aircon mechanics checked it and came up with the same results. These sceptics weren't happy with that, figuring that the aircon mechanics were just colluding together because a couple of them were bitching about getting paid late, so they employed their own trusted aircon mechanic to measure it. Just recently he came up with the same results again (refer to the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project). The sceptics are still not happy. Where the heck can you find an aircon mechanic around here who'll give someone the results they want to see?
Other sceptics say that the sweat stains are only on one side of your lounge, and you can't prove that they were caused by the temperature getting warmer. Maybe it was the dog after being squirted with the hose? You remark that they're neatly in the shape of a human backside, not a dog, and they've only been there since the house started getting warmer, so who are they trying to kid?
The sceptics say that's still not proof it wasn't the dog.Some sceptics say that yeah it's warming, and yeah it's the pink batts, but it's not an issue. Campari is just fine without ice anyway. Some feel it's unfair to blame the pink batts at all. They're worried that if it is the pink batts, they'll be forced to take them out of their home. Heck, it might even cause the collapse of the entire home insulation industry!
Wiser people know that's pretty unlikely. There will still be insulation required, but the industry needs to change the way it goes about business, get customers on board too, and certainly not simply hand out cheap batts to obsessive old grannies.These sceptics say that there are temperature fluctuations in the house anyway. The building inspectors say "well yeah, sometimes it plateaus a little on a particularly cold day very briefly, but looking at the overall temperature trend here, it's still going up, and we're quite certain that those batts are the cause. We know they trap the heat. We know there are more of them up there than what is naturally designed for the house. And we know who put them there".
Naughty granny.
And DutchRoll hits a home run in explaining exactly what's wrong with the CAGW hypothesis,
The underlying assumption in CAGW is that CO2 rises have a POSITIVE feedback on other greenhouse gases and that once a certain point is reached the effect of adding CO2 will cause accelerated warming (Farting granny adding another layer of pink batts in the roof). This is the primary hypothesis in all 4 (to-date) IPCC reports and a significant chunk of the peer reviewed literature.
Now, let's take guess at how many papers (peer reviewed or not) even attempt to provide a theoretical method for this positive feedback, or even postulate a theory, let alone proof ... And the winning answer is ... NIL
All of the models, papers, IPCC reports etc are based on this premise.
Just like farting granny adding another layer of pink batts, adding anthropogenic CO2 does not (in the view of the existing science) seem to accelerate warming. If anybody could demonstrate that it did, either hypothetically or in reality, they would be in for a real Nobel Prize - not one of those 'peace things' that people mistake for the real thing.
A couple of things to mull over, as we all attempt to slag each other:
1. Number of papers providing hypothesis, theory or proof of central underlying premise to CAGW - NIL ( despite over $100 really big ones being expended so far.
2. Never loose sight of 'Occam's Razor' - tend towards the hypothesis that requires the fewest new assumptions. I.e. It's JUST NATURAL.
The underlying assumption in CAGW is that CO2 rises have a POSITIVE feedback on other greenhouse gases and that once a certain point is reached the effect of adding CO2 will cause accelerated warming (Farting granny adding another layer of pink batts in the roof). This is the primary hypothesis in all 4 (to-date) IPCC reports and a significant chunk of the peer reviewed literature.
Now, let's take guess at how many papers (peer reviewed or not) even attempt to provide a theoretical method for this positive feedback, or even postulate a theory, let alone proof ... And the winning answer is ... NIL
All of the models, papers, IPCC reports etc are based on this premise.
Just like farting granny adding another layer of pink batts, adding anthropogenic CO2 does not (in the view of the existing science) seem to accelerate warming. If anybody could demonstrate that it did, either hypothetically or in reality, they would be in for a real Nobel Prize - not one of those 'peace things' that people mistake for the real thing.
A couple of things to mull over, as we all attempt to slag each other:
1. Number of papers providing hypothesis, theory or proof of central underlying premise to CAGW - NIL ( despite over $100 really big ones being expended so far.
2. Never loose sight of 'Occam's Razor' - tend towards the hypothesis that requires the fewest new assumptions. I.e. It's JUST NATURAL.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of crock. I have been fishing off the same rock in the upper north coast of NSW for 62 years, how much has the water come up? NOT, NEIN, not one miserable little inch. My ol man built a shack up there, its still there, we still go there, and every year there is a xmas tide and it comes up under the floor boards and for the rest of the year, it stays where it belongs. You want to see carbon, try a beautiful little DC9 spewing it all the way up on climb, thats carbon. Its nothing more then a tax grab for Labor, trying to appease their loopy nerd mates the Greens, and stuff the country. I belong to the "Don't get me started party" a group of airline people up here on the Goldie, some still flying, some retired, and we all agree (unusual) its a load of ****. So it must be.
Teresa green, thats a couple of interesting points you raise. At a rough approximation the tidal range in Ballina is around 1.7 metres, ive chosen Ballina as simply a random point on the north coast of NSW, it may be slightly more or less depending on where you are and its intended solely as an example. That 1.7m figure comes from here: Ballina, Australia, Australia 7 Day Tide Chart - Tide-Forecast.com .The measured, observed change in sea levels is around +1.8mm to +2 mm per year, averaged and taken from tidal gauges since 1880. Satellite measurements done over the last 15 years or so indicate a slightly faster change of around +3mm per year, and this is also reflected in the tidal measurement figures. This statement makes no judgement on what causes these changes or what if anything should be done, it is merely a measurement. These figures come from a range of meteorological and scientific organisations that have been measuring for decades and in some cases centuries, long before concern about global warming became an issue.
Given the extremely small and slow changes that occur over decades or centuries relative to the much larger daily tidal changes you will see, unless you take highly accurate measurements at high and low tides and make corrections for tidal influence and other factors, it is extremely unlikely that an observer sitting on a rock with a fishing rod (and a beer in hand i hope
) will see any changes that cant readily be explained as daily tidal variations. In that 62 years if the sea level increased by 2mm/year there would be a change of 12.4 cm, from the day you first arrived there to this years fishing trip. This is approximately the same change as you would see in waiting a little less than half an hour while the tide was coming in. (assuming a 6 hour tidal cycle low to high, with the water level increasing evenly throughout that 6 hour period, a slight simplification but near enough for what we are looking at here.)
Do you believe that you would notice a very gradual 12 cm change over 62 years when each day you see a change of around +/- 1.7 metres, with waves and swell on top of these changes? I can understand how it is easy to say, entirely honestly, "I havent seen it happen", but I think given the timescales and sizes of the changes, you wouldnt see it without making use of tidal gauges and recording measurements over decades, which is what a few organisations have done. This is a major weakness with the "I havent seen it, therefore it isnt happening" argument. Also, everyone in your group of friends and colleagues agreeing with you is not really a strong argument - in any political party or social/religious organisation (left, right, fundamentalist christian/muslim/atheist, crypto-fascist bourgeois commie
) you will find groups of people in furious agreement with one another on many things, but that doesnt necessarily make them correct, or even remotely connected to reality. Im not suggesting this is the case with your group, just that people agreeing on something doesnt automatically make all those involved correct.
Given the extremely small and slow changes that occur over decades or centuries relative to the much larger daily tidal changes you will see, unless you take highly accurate measurements at high and low tides and make corrections for tidal influence and other factors, it is extremely unlikely that an observer sitting on a rock with a fishing rod (and a beer in hand i hope
) will see any changes that cant readily be explained as daily tidal variations. In that 62 years if the sea level increased by 2mm/year there would be a change of 12.4 cm, from the day you first arrived there to this years fishing trip. This is approximately the same change as you would see in waiting a little less than half an hour while the tide was coming in. (assuming a 6 hour tidal cycle low to high, with the water level increasing evenly throughout that 6 hour period, a slight simplification but near enough for what we are looking at here.) Do you believe that you would notice a very gradual 12 cm change over 62 years when each day you see a change of around +/- 1.7 metres, with waves and swell on top of these changes? I can understand how it is easy to say, entirely honestly, "I havent seen it happen", but I think given the timescales and sizes of the changes, you wouldnt see it without making use of tidal gauges and recording measurements over decades, which is what a few organisations have done. This is a major weakness with the "I havent seen it, therefore it isnt happening" argument. Also, everyone in your group of friends and colleagues agreeing with you is not really a strong argument - in any political party or social/religious organisation (left, right, fundamentalist christian/muslim/atheist, crypto-fascist bourgeois commie
) you will find groups of people in furious agreement with one another on many things, but that doesnt necessarily make them correct, or even remotely connected to reality. Im not suggesting this is the case with your group, just that people agreeing on something doesnt automatically make all those involved correct.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Satellite measurements done over the last 15 years or so indicate a slightly faster change of around +3mm per year, and this is also reflected in the tidal measurement figures.
Figures can lie
.Tidal rises and falls are normal. And they lag a long way behind the atmosphere. The warming of the oceans at diferent times throughout history has caused rises, the water expands, but it also cools.
None of this is from man made CO2 in the last 50 years, it must have been those coal burning Jet flying folk hundreds and thousands and Millions of years back.
Go find a paleoclimatologist and sit down and have a good chat about it. After all they are the very ones you need to talk to. It is truly enlightening.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I guess the floor boards in the shack give me much more info than the pet rock. Built right where you could never build now but the ol man built it just after the war, and nobody cared then. Its close enough for a xmas tide to come inside, (after 40 years the missus is starting to accept it, but still goes ballistic) us blokes and kids think its good fun, she doesn't, the point I am making I have yet had to replace the floor boards, we only have it at Xmas, and never flood at any other time. The earth changes, it always has, and I have been here long enough, to accept it. The worst drought we ever had was in the thirties, the worst flood we ever had was in Qld when Clermont went under killing most of its population that was 1910. Yes we could be contributing, but nobody can be 100% sure, what we can be sure of no tax is going to fix it. The wonderful mix of aviation brains at the Goldie's "Dont Get Me Started Party", makes more sense to me than Tim Flannery (who has just built on the water).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your argument has been taking a few body blows in the last few days DutchRoll. Even the IPCC is trying to wrangle out of the global warming argument. The golden parachutes within the IPCC are being prepared.
You are making the same mistake that the pro-warmers have made for the last 30 years. You ASSUME that the world's climate is as simple as the environment inside the home. If it's not granny, then it's the heater. If it's not the heater, then it's the batts.
You ASSUME the pro-warmers know every feedback, every sink, every source of CO2, every energy interaction, every oceanic influence, every temperature change and are modelling each and every one of these influences simply and completely on a computer. Seems like the IPCC has found a little humility in the past week. It has to if it wants the budget funding to continue. It's changing its tune to one of moral conscience. How sweet! Doesn't help the millions of Australians impacted by a carbon tax though.
The only significant thing that has changed in your house, after an extensive inspection by building inspectors, is the extra layer of pink batts.
You ASSUME the pro-warmers know every feedback, every sink, every source of CO2, every energy interaction, every oceanic influence, every temperature change and are modelling each and every one of these influences simply and completely on a computer. Seems like the IPCC has found a little humility in the past week. It has to if it wants the budget funding to continue. It's changing its tune to one of moral conscience. How sweet! Doesn't help the millions of Australians impacted by a carbon tax though.