Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel

[Rusty1970]

"At the risk of feeding the Troll;

I note the climate hasn't changed much for the better in those 16 days either."

You're not really saying anyone who disagrees with you is a Troll, are you?

Your point is a fairly silly one (I was hoping it was in jest, but I imagine not given earlier posts). It's a shame the debate about this not only here but in the wider community has come to this.

[Captain Nomad]

I think this assumes that the principal behavior the tax is designed to change is all at the consumer level. I am not sure that's 100% correct.

Considering that we are all individually and corporately (at an industry level) consumers and producers of CO2 I don't see what you are objecting to especially considering this statement that you also make:

Government AND Opposition. They both have the same CO2 reduction targets. (5% less than 2000 levels by 2020 I think).

I see that you haven't bothered to comment on whether a miniscule change in our 1.5% global contribution WILL actually measurably impact the climate change models...

[Rusty1970]

Quote:
I think this assumes that the principal behavior the tax is designed to change is all at the consumer level. I am not sure that's 100% correct.
Considering that we are all individually and corporately (at an industry level) consumers and producers of CO2 I don't see what you are objecting to especially considering this statement that you also make:

Quote:
Government AND Opposition. They both have the same CO2 reduction targets. (5% less than 2000 levels by 2020 I think).
I see that you haven't bothered to comment on whether a miniscule change in our 1.5% global contribution WILL actually measurably impact the climate change models...

What I was saying (in the first bit) was that there is no great expectation that consumers will change their individual behavior. So no individual is expected to fly less, for example, for the scheme to have an effect.

In terms of our contribution to global emissions, you're absolutely correct. No reduction in our emissions will lead to much of a difference in itself. That is true of almost every country. Collective action is required if it is to make a difference to CO2 levels. And even them we're talking about a slowing of the rise for quite a while. Anything faster will require a much higher price / more drastic action and there is zero appetite for that except among the more extreme Greens.

So when we go to the G20, or APEC, or EAS or RIO+20, and ask the rest of the world to do something, and our emissions are higher per capita than most (and land size if not relevant, it's emissions per person that counts) and they say "well, what are you doing", what do you propose our response is?

It'd be like the Japanese saying "why don't the Norwegians stop whaling?"

And please don't say nobody else is doing anything. That's just not correct.

[Frank Arouet]

Rusted;

Your point is a fairly silly one

It was Peterc that said the carbon tax had no effect albeit only 16 days, and by way of comparison, I mentioned the climate hasn't changed either.

Do you get it now? Don't you think peterc is a bit silly? and don't you feel your support for him is a bit silly also?

No I guess you don't.

The two, or however many of you there are, are as believable as Ali Hassan al Majid.

[Rusty1970]

"It was Peterc that said the carbon tax had no effect albeit only 16 days, and by way of comparison, I mentioned the climate hasn't changed either.

Do you get it now? Don't you think peterc is a bit silly? and don't you feel your support for him is a bit silly also?

No I guess you don't.

The two, or however many of you there are, are as believable as Ali Hassan al Majid."

It was, and the difference is that the tax began on July 1 so you'd expect to see price impacts fairly quickly. However, businesses offsetting those costs with less carbon intensive processes or equipment will take much longer. And change to the climate (which as I said will take global action) will take much longer. Hence the "has the climate changed in 16 days" was ridiculous and you deserved to be called on it.

As it happens, I've not said whether I agree with the scheme or not. I've just corrected some of the factually wrong assertions in some posts.

But I do like your conspiracy theory about "however many of you there are". Quite a few as it turns out. At last count, 4 in 10 Australians supported a carbon tax. That number rises to 6 in 10 (that'd be a majority) when they have it explained to them in moderate detail. How's that for a conspiracy?

I genuinely don't mind talking about this stuff. I know a bit about it but am no expert, but am happy to debate it. The problem with this thread is it is all vitriol. Nobody wants a genuine debate, they want to sprout dubious "experts" and make patently outlandish claims. ("everything will go up", "why hasn't the climate changed yet'). I applaud PeterC for giving it a go but I do wonder what the point is.

Don't forget though, the Libs/Nats will either 1. Raise taxes (potentially back to PM Howard levels who hold the record as the highest taxing Govt in Aust history) or 2. Cut Services to pay for their scheme (roughly $5bn a year by their own estimates) to do exactly the same thing. So who do you plan to vote for if this bothers you so much? You have to preference one of them ahead of the other no matter who you put first.

[Frank Arouet]

Earth calling Rusty, you are unreadable, say again........say again......say again.......

Lost him. Oh well, no loss.

[Rusty1970]

Which bit is wrong Frank?

[Flying Binghi]

via Rusty1970;

Leaving aside the scientific questionablity of the statement....

Rusty1970, do tell me more about this scientific "questionablity" ..






.

[Flying Binghi]

Climate SNAFU

.


Oh dear...


"...When independent auditors found errors, gaps and deep questions about the HQ (High Quality) dataset for the official record of Australian temperatures, the BOM responded by producing a completely new set called ACORN in March 2012. But this set is also plagued with errors. One of the independent auditors, Ed Thurstan writes to me to explain that though the BOM says it aimed for the “best possible data set” and specified that they check internal consistency of data (one such check is to make sure that the maximum on any given day is larger than the minimum) when Thurstan double checked ACORN he found nearly 1000 instances where the max temperatures were lower than the minimums recorded the same day..."









BOMs new data set, ACORN, so bad it should be withdrawn (954 min temps larger than the max!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax






.

[peterc005]

@Flying Binghi - all that shows is you spend all your spare time reading whacko conspiracy theory web sites.

Speak to the doctor about the dose of your medication and get back to the real world.

[Chimbu chuckles]

To label Jo Nova's site 'whacko conspiracy theory' shows who is the denier

[OZBUSDRIVER]

History has a habit of biting people on the backside....

Charles Sturt and his "Farenheit's Thermometer". What really is the hottest recorded temperature in Australia? 1828 53.9C?

Go read about it on JoNova.

[De_flieger]

Flying Binghi - interesting point, and worth looking into. (regarding an earlier question you asked - yes, work is a rude interruption to this interesting debate )The BOM makes that dataset available, and you or I can easily look up the daily min-max temperature records for each station. I looked up a couple of dates that were highlighted on her website as having this particular discrepancy and you - and she - are correct in that regard. The minimum daily temperature is recorded as higher than the maximum. Uh oh!

Unfortunately here is where it spears off into entirely uncharted territory and starts drawing conclusions not supported by the evidence. The Joanne Nova website publishes the claim that

This is a blindingly obvious type of error which should not have escaped quality control. It throws serious doubt on the whole ACORN-SAT project. In my opinion, these violations indicate that the entire ACORN-SAT database is suspect, and should be withdrawn for further testing.

whereas the BOM report actually on how the dataset was created specifically looks for these errors, and a number of other error types. It discusses in some detail how these errors may have occurred, their impact on the overall dataset, and the techniques used to mitigate their presence, which include excluding those particular data points if necessary. If the author of the website had read the articles she is attempting to discredit she would have seen this. She makes the specific claim that:

Why are basic checks like these left to unpaid volunteers, while Australian citizens pay $10 billion a year to reduce a warming trend recorded in a data set so poor that it’s not possible to draw any conclusions about the real current trend we are supposedly so concerned about. — Jo

which is factually incorrect. These checks, and a range of others, are done and discussed in great detail in the report produced by the BOM, available here: http://cawcr.gov.au/publications/tec...ts/CTR_049.pdf which she is attempting to discredit, but it is obvious she hasnt actually read. Unfortunately its errors like this that do a lot of damage to her credibility - she has made statements that are factually incorrect but not at first glance obviously wrong. It then takes a bit of reading and research to find the relevant papers she is referring to, and understand what the papers are actually saying, which in this case at least is entirely different to what she is claiming.

A couple of points that are worth considering here - the dataset consists of approximately 7 million data points, and that particular error was found in just under 1000 points. Thats a large number, but an extremely small proportion of the records, it works out to 0.014% of the records. These errors were typically in the hand-written records derived from manual observations of maximum and minimum recording thermometers, and as you can see on the Joanne Nova website, typically occurred prior to the advent of automated temperature recording methods. This wasnt exclusively the case, and the report also details recording protocols and errors - such as power surges in automated equipment, recordings attributed to preceding days, thunderstorms in tropical areas producing short-term fluctuations in temperature not representative of the entire day that, and so on - that were made that cause these problems in the data. The descriptions are a bit verbose to go into here, but its available in the report linked above. It discusses how the errors occurred, were detected and both the number of changes, exclusions and corrections made, and the direction both positive and negative they were made in.

[Towering Q]

Whilst I respect Joanne Nova's opinion as a Scientist, it should be remembered that her field of expertise is Microbiology, not Climate Science.

The minimum daily temperature is recorded as higher than the maximum. Uh oh!

This point gets covered quite well in one of the comments made in Flying Binghi's link.

BOMs new data set, ACORN, so bad it should be withdrawn (954 min temps larger than the max!) « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

Check out comment #22 by Adam Smith. (He's a brave lad, venturing into that Lions Den.)

It's a bit too lengthy to cut and paste here, but does provide an insight into how it is possible to have the minimum higher than the maximum.

[Rusty1970]

Quote:
via Rusty1970;

Leaving aside the scientific questionablity of the statement....

Rusty1970, do tell me more about this scientific "questionablity" ..

Sure Binghi.

If it is true that some plants benefit from additional CO2 (and I'll take your word for it - I'm not arguing that bit, just the conclusion you drew from it), that doesn't mean that additional atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial.

If, for example, we have significant temperature drops in continental Europe because of the stopping of the North Atlantic current as predicted in various models, then it doesn't matter that they're getting more CO2, it'll be too cold for many existing plants to survive.

Equally, where it gets hotter, same effect. Not necessarily fewer plants I imagine, but different ones. Where wheat grew before, for example, it will no longer. It'll grow elsewhere though presumably assuming there is water there. The local effects are somewhat unpredictable. The Europe scenario though is obviously a big deal.

Your original conclusion is like saying that the human body needs Arsenic (which it does in trace amounts) so it's OK to increase the concentration in our homes. Clearly this is not the case.

Of course all this is based on you believing the vast majority of scientists who believe that human CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) are causing climate change. If you don't and choose to believe the small minority (many of who have conflicts - contracts from big miners, etc etc) then I guess this all seems ridiculous.

It's worth stating that under John Howard if he had won in 2007 there would have been an Emissions Trading Scheme now. It was an election policy. The same scientists in the CSIRO now advising the current Government by and large were advising him then. It's not a Labor thing. And of course, again, the current Opposition has the same CO2 reduction targets as the Government. They too, officially, believe in human induced climate change, and have a multi-billion dollar plan to try and stop it.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

It's worth stating that under John Howard if he had won in 2007 there would have been an Emissions Trading Scheme now. It was an election policy.

It is also worth stating that Howard would have commited nothing until the rest of the world moved on it. If Howard was still in now both the trading scheme and water policy would have been scraped! Howard was a tough enough pragmatist to admit that to the voters.

The simple truth of the matter is this...The drought broke ten months too early and saved us from Rudd.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Rusty1970....just show me one link that proves that CO2 has any effect on global temperature.

CO2 is a trace gas....even though the politicians talk in billions of tonnes, it means nothing when you are comparing to the entire atmosphere. it is still 335 parts per million, which is 0.000335% of the atmosphere!

Second law of Thermodynamics...heat flows from a warmer object to a cooler object. So, there is no radiation from CO2 that will warm the Earth. The blanket effect...a resistor that slows the flow of heat...CO2 only acts on two narrow wavelengths of radiation.

The true driver of climate is the Sun and the Moon. Sun provides the energy and the Moon does the mixing...always has, always will. El Nino/La Nina, NPDO, IOD...all of it driven by Solar energy and gravitational force. What is happening now happened in the 20's and 30's in the US. PDO in a cool phase, jet streams sitting further south in the SW US and you get drought...nothing to do with ice melt or a trace gas, just plain old physics!

[Rusty1970]

Quote:
It's worth stating that under John Howard if he had won in 2007 there would have been an Emissions Trading Scheme now. It was an election policy.
It is also worth stating that Howard would have commited nothing until the rest of the world moved on it. If Howard was still in now both the trading scheme and water policy would have been scraped! Howard was a tough enough pragmatist to admit that to the voters.

The simple truth of the matter is this...The drought broke ten months too early and saved us from Rudd.

That's not actually true. The promise was unconditional is my recollection. There already was broad international agreement on targets. Kyoto. Only Aus and US hadn't signed.

Mr Abbott was never convinced about an Emissions Trading Scheme of course. He wanted a "simple tax."

Tony Abbott:"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax." - YouTube

[Rusty1970]

OZBUSDRIVER,

"Proves". There's that word. Given evolution and relativity are still "theories" that pretty much nobody except the religious (and these days few of them) dispute, you'll have to make do with very "high levels of confidence" of hundreds of climate specialists. Those crazy scientists - cause themselves more problems that it is worth by not just telling little while lies and saying they're certain.

In fact (as an aside), that's a good way to tell somebody who is not to be taken seriously. The denialist "scientists" are all "certain", real scientists are "very confident". Certainty usually arrives with a paycheque from a big company.

Anyway, to your question. You've probably read and dismissed it, but try:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...r4_syr_spm.pdf

There are many, many others, but this is the best.

The "trace gas" argument is a bit of a furphy. CO2 (and other greenhouse gases like Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CFCs etc etc) are all trace, but they nevertheless keep the planet warm. Otherwise, we'd be like the moon. (Nitrogen and Oxygen aren't going to do it - not greenhouse gases). So that it is present in very small quantities doesn't really matter. It works. What matters is the increase in amount. It's closer to 390ppm at the moment, which is much higher than any time in the last 650,000 years (it got to 290ppm at one point). Then it works a little too well.

As the report says, "During the past 50 years, the sum of solar and volcanic
forcings would likely have produced cooling." We should be seeing a drop in average global temps, but we aren't. Quite the opposite. Of course the sun provides the warming, but how much of that heat is trapped depends on the makeup of the atmosphere - otherwise, again, we'd be the moon. We change it, we change the planet. That too, is physics.

The weather phenomena you're referring to are relatively short term. This is not that. Nor is it localised (though there are local effects).

I'm no climate scientist or physicist. My degree is in chemistry. But I can read a report or article. I know scholarly and credible and I know biased and conflicted. I'm yet to read anything from the denialists that isn't easily debunked or full of straw men.

But somehow, I don't think I will have convinced you!

And to stay on topic, the effect on aviation will be very minor. Except that it will drive companies to look at cleaner fuels.

[Flying Binghi]

./QUOTE][/QUOTE][/QUOTE].


This will be interesting and of importance to Oz...


"...A climate change group has taken the National Institute for Atmospheric and Water Research (NIWA) to court over what they say are inaccurate temperature recordings.
The New Zealand Climate Education Trust - a branch of the NZ Climate Science Coalition - are challenging NIWA figures which show a rise in temperatures in New Zealand of 1degC over the past 100 years.
This figure is significantly higher than global warming figures around the world and the trust is questioning how NIWA calculated the figures and whether they are accurate..."



Kiwi weather station data shenanigins going to court | Watts Up With That?





.