Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[Logique]

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Bob Brown and the Greens are becoming unstoppable. Shudder.

 

[Calliope]

I gotta agree with Julia here, I don't know why you started this thread when its pretty obvious that the majority of the forum don't believe in the human contribution to climate change.

It is pointless to try and convince people who made up their minds, its like trying to convince a indoctrined muslim/christian to become a atheist.

The other thread is titled "Resisting Climate Hysteria." Basilio is all about creating climate hysteria. By opening a new thread he hoped to attract more alarmists to his cause. He has failed to do this, but has retained a few of the usual suspects who are mainly rusted-on lefties.

 

[basilio]

The other thread is titled "Resisting Climate Hysteria." Basilio is all about creating climate hysteria. By opening a new thread he hoped to attract more alarmists to his cause. He has failed to do this, but has retained a few of the usual suspects who are mainly rusted-on lefties.

Let me introduce the latest group of climate alarmists who think we need to deal with what is known about current global warming trends. Definitely subversives.

(The Defence Science Board Report is quite good as well.)

CIA urged to be more open about climate change

US government agency says CIA should abandon its traditional culture of secrecy and begin sharing its intelligence on the issue


After a year of epic weather, drought, heatwaves, hurricanes and floods, America's intelligence establishment has come out with a bold new suggestion: maybe it's time the CIA stopped treating climate change as a secret.

A new report from the Defence Science Board – a US government agency – urges the CIA to step outside its traditional culture of secrecy and begin sharing the intelligence it has been gathering on climate change.

The report, Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security, goes as far as to recommend the establishment of a new agency devoted to the study of climate change – one that would operate in the open and transparent manner so alien to the CIA.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/14/cia-urged-open-climate-change

 

[Calliope]

Let me introduce the latest group of climate alarmists who think we need to deal with what is known about current global warming trends. Definitely subversives.

(The Defence Science Board Report is quite good as well.)

So they think the CIA should be more transparent. I am surprised that The Guardian would give any credence to CIA machinations. However I guess it is their job to be alarmist.

 

[spooly74]

...

Human hand fingered?

But when you get down to specifics, the academic consensus is far less certain.


Enhanced glacier melt could speed up sea level rise in the coming decades
There is "low confidence" that tropical cyclones have become more frequent, "limited-to-medium evidence available" to assess whether climatic factors have changed the frequency of floods, and "low confidence" on a global scale even on whether the frequency has risen or fallen.

In terms of attribution of trends to rising greenhouse gas concentrations, the uncertainties continue.

While it is "likely" that anthropogenic influences are behind the changes in cold days and warm days, there is only "medium confidence" that they are behind changes in extreme rainfall events, and "low confidence" in attributing any changes in tropical cyclone activity to greenhouse gas emissions or anything else humanity has done.

(These terms have specific meanings in IPCC-speak, with "very likely" meaning 90-100% and "likely" 66-100%, for example.)

And for the future, the draft gives even less succour to those seeking here a new mandate for urgent action on greenhouse gas emissions, declaring: "Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183

I find the last line interesting.
Why only 2-3 decades? Natural Climate Variability has the potential to span all timescales.

 

[Knobby22]

I find the last line interesting.
Why only 2-3 decades? Natural Climate Variability has the potential to span all timescales.

Re-read it, it makes sense.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Looking at the title of this thread - Would I be correct in assuming that if man didn't produce any Co2 (eg the 3% of total CO2) then humans could stop global warming?

Was the global climate "stable" in centuries past before CO2 from man? Is this what the historic trends show? If so, can I request for 26 deg C everyday pls.

Should I move my unanswered questions from the hysterical alarmist thread to here, where someone with traditional authority and knowledge can answer some very basic questions on CO2 and observed evidence? Unless Basilio wants to go back and actually answer them without referring to propaganda blogs and models?

 

[sails]

Looking at the title of this thread - Would I be correct in assuming that if man didn't produce any Co2 (eg the 3% of total CO2) then humans could stop global warming?

Was the global climate "stable" in centuries past before CO2 from man? Is this what the historic trends show? If so, can I request for 26 deg C everyday pls....

My thoughts too, OWG. History tells us there have been extreme weather events throughout history and long before industrialisation may have had any impact on the planet.

But, extreme weather events frighten people, so I suppose if one wants to con people into parting with their money, making them afraid is one way of doing so.

 

[spooly74]

Re-read it, it makes sense.

So for the next 20 or 30 years, there should be no conclusive attribution of weather extreme events due to AGW?
Seems like a backflip.

 

[Knobby22]

So for the next 20 or 30 years, there should be no conclusive attribution of weather extreme events due to AGW?
Seems like a backflip.

Weather is highly variable so even though the warming will have an effect it will be swamped by the highly variable weather so .. for instance.. a cyclone happens that is really bad, it will be difficult to quantify how much worse it is because the waters in which it was created were hotter than normal because that is very difficult to measure. An if vs a reality.

Think of it like the share market.
Say a share makes consistently 7% more profit a year but the market is very volatile (like now). The share price is likely to range far more than 40%. The effect of the increased profits will have a positive effect but it is swamped by the market. Nonetheless the profit and the higher price you get for the share - on average and in the long term - is very real.

They are scientists so they are naturally aware of the swamping effect. It takes many years of measurements and research to quantify these things. Those glaciers therefore will just keep melting.

 

[Smurf1976]

I am the first to agree that this carbon tax is a scam, but even if Australia is too small to matter, I still would prefer the world to be given a chance, (however small Australia is, we will pay the same price and probably worse than the average)

Please explain to me how relocating emissions from one country to another is giving the world a chance? A chance at what, exactly?

If the carbon tax actually reduced emissions then it may be of some benefit depending on your views on the issue. But simply relocating emissions from Australia to some other country is a dud no matter what you believe regarding the CO2 issue itself. We're all on the same planet - moving pollution around isn't going to help in the slightest.

 

[Smurf1976]

Then im afraid its official...you just don't get it.

In your world price increases have absolutely no affect on consumption....its not the price tag that stops people living in Double bay and driving ferraris.

Price increases have no effect on consumption when there is a legal option to not pay the price increase and not reduce pollution.

It's like income tax. Why would I pay income tax if there were legal means to avoid it? For most of the major polluters, the carbon tax is entirely optional - how many do you think will bother with it or reducing emissions?

 

[explod]

But, extreme weather events frighten people, so I suppose if one wants to con people into parting with their money, making them afraid is one way of doing so.

They are actually killing people.

And it is interesting that the mainstream press under report this aspect.

 

[explod]

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Bob Brown and the Greens are becoming unstoppable. Shudder.

Because maybe thier propaganda is better than the mainstream.

 

[So_Cynical]

Price increases have no effect on consumption when there is a legal option to not pay the price increase and not reduce pollution.

It's like income tax. Why would I pay income tax if there were legal means to avoid it? For most of the major polluters, the carbon tax is entirely optional - how many do you think will bother with it or reducing emissions?

Orly? please explain.

---------------------

Over time all businesses will take action to reduce there GHG footprint/Baseline...over time it will be just another cost input to be managed, most of the big businesses affected in this first round (top 500) will appoint a GHG manager and give him/her a small specialist team.

That team will establish a base line (under Kyoto rules) and develop policy and advise on GHG reduction initiatives and possibly's etc...pave the way forward.

 

[Smurf1976]

Orly? please explain.

Easy.

Ship Australian coal and metal ores to a non-taxed country.

Produce metal in said country.

Tax avoided.

Simple really and it's the same approach as what happened with the forest industry in Tasmania once electricity supply became an issue. Investment in the paper mills stalled, exports of raw wood ramped up, and only 1 of the 4 mills we once had is still in operation today despite booming global demand for paper products over that time.

Now we're about to see the same thing with metals processing on mainland Australia - shut the local processing and ramp up ore exports in order to sustain the economy overall. It's a pretty sure way to wreck the local environment when you think of what that really involves and it's not much good economically either.

Now look at what's happened in other places which have gone down the high energy cost track. They also offshored their manufacturing and emissions. Spot the pattern here? Few will pay any tax when it's easy to avoid it and you can't compete in manufacturing without competitively priced energy.

Would you pay income tax if you had a legal and relatively easy means of avoiding it? Possibly you might but I seriously doubt it...

If this carbon tax was to work then it needs to apply to Australian consumption of goods rather than production. So there would be a carbon tax on a fully imported car, for example, since producing it caused the emission of CO2 overseas. Indeed there would be a tax on practically everything imported into Australia, with the same tax on domestic production and zero tax on production to export (administed in the form of a tax credit / rebate type arrangement).

Trouble is, that arrangement actually cuts emissions without screwing Australian industry. That's too good an outcome...

 

[So_Cynical]

Easy.

Ship Australian coal and metal ores to a non-taxed country.

Produce metal in said country.

Tax avoided.

Yes but there's a cost to that for most of the big polluters, if not all of em...look at the power stations and Alloy smelters they could simply build 5 new smaller plants to replace the out put from a large plant and thus avoid the tax...if there keen on spending billions to avoid it.

Some industry's will certainly move offshore...no doubt about it, and clean green industry's will replace them or at least ease the pain of there withdrawal....the Aussie economy is in transition and the carbon tax will speed things along.

If this carbon tax was to work then it needs to apply to Australian consumption of goods rather than production. So there would be a carbon tax on a fully imported car, for example, since producing it caused the emission of CO2 overseas. Indeed there would be a tax on practically everything imported into Australia, with the same tax on domestic production and zero tax on production to export (administed in the form of a tax credit / rebate type arrangement).

Trouble is, that arrangement actually cuts emissions without screwing Australian industry. That's too good an outcome...

Would probably be in breach of our trade treaty commitments...seen as a breach of free trade etc i would think.

 

[qldfrog]

Please explain to me how relocating emissions from one country to another is giving the world a chance? A chance at what, exactly?

If the carbon tax actually reduced emissions then it may be of some benefit depending on your views on the issue. But simply relocating emissions from Australia to some other country is a dud no matter what you believe regarding the CO2 issue itself. We're all on the same planet - moving pollution around isn't going to help in the slightest.

And once again, please read what I said, this is NOT a thread about the carbon tax.
I fully agree with you about the existing tax, to be effective, this should apply to all imports, and sorry but it has to hurt to be useful: no extra money for compensation whether you are a brown coal plant or a 4wd driving pensioner;
It should not be a class leveler as it is now

but the fact is, if you believe in science and not talk shows or exxon propaganda (g\uess what, they pay scientist as well) with your taxes quite often thru subsidies, we are in for a serious wake up call

 

[sails]

They are actually killing people.

And it is interesting that the mainstream press under report this aspect.

Explod, extreme weather events have always been killing people - this is nothing new. I believe there were a number of deaths in the 1893 floods BEFORE the globe apparently warmed by one degree. Of course, this is probably an effective way to scare people into paying a tax, but I can't see how money changing hands is actually going to change our weather patterns enough to save lives - and I think it's unlikely that the trading carbon credits won't actually reduce atmospheric co2.

So, even if you are a full blown warmist, surely this business of trading carbon credits doesn't make sense if you really want atmospheric co2 reduced?

So far, the predictions of no more dam filling rains have not come true. What will happen when people are taxed to the poor house and bad weather still kills people? What will the excuses be?

Because maybe thier propaganda is better than the mainstream.

Explod, are you admitting that deception is being used to mislead the people?

Definition of Propaganda:

"Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."​

 

[sails]

...Over time all businesses will take action to reduce there GHG footprint/Baseline...over time it will be just another cost input to be managed, most of the big businesses affected in this first round (top 500) will appoint a GHG manager and give him/her a small specialist team.

That team will establish a base line (under Kyoto rules) and develop policy and advise on GHG reduction initiatives and possibly's etc...pave the way forward.

SC - This tax will hopefully exist for not much more than a year as the coalition are committed to repleal it. See the link to Greg Hunt's article below.

And I understood that Japan, Russia, Canada are not planning to renew their support for Kyoto. Link below.

http://www.greghunt.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=2238

Kyoto deal loses four big nations

UN May Seek to Extend Kyoto Pact Without Canada, Japan, Russia