Uncertain what a carbon tax is

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Source http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ - Please provide source if you are going to dispute other people opinions. Arguments are avoided.

2003 rough figures total volcanic is 200 million tonnes of CO2 while total human output in 1 year is 28.6 billion tonnes.

Bert your information although correct is irrelevant if you have no data or evidence to back it up. Level is significant although less than 1% still Myth busted. May not look so argumentative.

This might be a good place though to get complete data on all natural CO2 emissions put together.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Originally Posted by CDKPhil

Seeing we are talking about tax wasn't personal income tax taken over from the States in 1942 by the Federal Government and to be given back when the war was over? Why are we still paying income tax to the Federal Government?
Now that we have a GST shouldn't our income tax have been reduce?
Lower income tax and people would have more money to spend on renewable energy? Government would still receive the same amount of money through GST. And those of us that actually pay tax would be more financial to care about the environment rather than worrying about how we are going to pay the mortgage or the electricity bill or even food.

Phil

Nice thought but no government is going to give up on revenue that easily.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Paul you have been misled. Volcanos have a very minor output compared to ours.
As far as temperatures remaining constant another cherry picked statistic.
It is totally wrong!
Tell me what people in the 'sciences' are the ones that you know that disagree with Garnuat. Are they all denialists?
Just because you think that more uniformed idiots are on your side does not make it correct.
The reality is we are in deep trouble. Not only are we all trashing our only planet we are also using it's natural resources at 150% above natural replenishment.
I honestly do not care about you or anybody else. You are all ruining your only home. If you are too stupid to see it. It is to your shame.
We are already past the point of no return in my opinion. I will take no joy out of being correct.

We have passed peak oil and we will soon pass peak water. The next world wide war will be fought over water. We most probably have to ride horses and camels to it as there will be no oil.

Bert

Ummm, you have such a way with words Bert, I sense some frustration here..?

I think Bert is speaking figuratively Paul

Mike

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Paul you have been misled. Volcanos have a very minor output compared to ours.
As far as temperatures remaining constant another cherry picked statistic.
It is totally wrong!
Tell me what people in the 'sciences' are the ones that you know that disagree with Garnuat. Are they all denialists?
Just because you think that more uniformed idiots are on your side does not make it correct.
The reality is we are in deep trouble. Not only are we all trashing our only planet we are also using it's natural resources at 150% above natural replenishment.
I honestly do not care about you or anybody else. You are all ruining your only home. If you are too stupid to see it. It is to your shame.
We are already past the point of no return in my opinion. I will take no joy out of being correct.

We have passed peak oil and we will soon pass peak water. The next world wide war will be fought over water. We most probably have to ride horses and camels to it as there will be no oil.

Bert

How do you deal with CO2 lag Bert? Try to keep the discussion academic too. You are verging on personal attack here. I don't care if you think I am wrong and say so, but don't infer that I am an uniformed idiot please. I am well educated like yourself and I do read constantly.

Back to my point, if CO2 lag can be around 200-1000 years different from temperature increases, then anything we have done has not caused the recent temperature rises? That site you pointed me to has plenty of scientists there and some don't agree with the anthropogenic causes argument.

This link below from NASA shows or indicates that temperature is stable and or reducing. Unless I am reading the graphs incorrectly, which I don't think I am. Yes this is surface temperature.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

I agree the earth is being destroyed but there are much more harmful elements poisoning our environment than CO2. That should be stopped before the water is poisoned.

[CDKPhil]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

I agree the earth is being destroyed but there are much more harmful elements poisoning our environment than CO2. That should be stopped before the water is poisoned.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

This link below from NASA shows or indicates that temperature is stable and or reducing. Unless I am reading the graphs incorrectly, which I don't think I am. Yes this is surface temperature.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

Hard not to see a rising trend there. Sure there are some ups and downs and the strong el nino of 1998 stands out but you always see the temperature on the right side higher than on the left.

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

How do you deal with CO2 lag Bert?

You'll need to explain what you are talking about. I have an idea what this may be about and if I'm right it's interesting but irrelevant.

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

You'll need to explain what you are talking about. I have an idea what this may be about and if I'm right it's interesting but irrelevant.

From what I have read CO2 rises often lags well behind a temperature rise. See link below. Lags have been shown to be anywhere from 200 to 1000 years different from temperature rise. This to my mind and a few others indicate that CO2 is not the causative effect of rising temperatures. You know the chicken and the egg thing. Since CO2 is being used as the causation for climate change and rise in temperatures, this would then seem a flawed argument of increasing CO2 = temperature rise. Maybe I have this wrong. While most of this discussion related to interglacial aspects it can also be inferred there is a corresponding relationship to now.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

That set of graphs on NASA show a flattening on the sea surface temp anomalies for the last 8 or so years. Yes the temps rose sharply for 30 years then flattened from 2000.

I stand corrected about the volcanic output.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Slightly off topic, but perhaps not too much.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2778378.html

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

From what I have read CO2 rises often lags well behind a temperature rise. See link below. Lags have been shown to be anywhere from 200 to 1000 years different from temperature rise. This to my mind and a few others indicate that CO2 is not the causative effect of rising temperatures. You know the chicken and the egg thing. Since CO2 is being used as the causation for climate change and rise in temperatures, this would then seem a flawed argument of increasing CO2 = temperature rise. Maybe I have this wrong. While most of this discussion related to interglacial aspects it can also be inferred there is a corresponding relationship to now.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

That set of graphs on NASA show a flattening on the sea surface temp anomalies for the last 8 or so years. Yes the temps rose sharply for 30 years then flattened from 2000.

I stand corrected about the volcanic output.

I see that you are trying to do a personal summary of some of the available research which is certainly a good idea...but with great respect Paul, why do you doubt the IPCC's summary of what I gather would be far more reports and studies on the issue than you will ever likely lay your hands or eye's on? I am not trying to be smart here, just curious.

Why might astronomer buffs like those on this forum largely trust the summary of results that point to a Hubble constant within about the same degree of certainty but have trouble accepting the best concensus on climate change and it's likely causes?

And much more importantly, why would anyone think that a government should doubt it...?

Mike

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

From what I have read CO2 rises often lags well behind a temperature rise. See link below. Lags have been shown to be anywhere from 200 to 1000 years different from temperature rise. This to my mind and a few others indicate that CO2 is not the causative effect of rising temperatures. You know the chicken and the egg thing. Since CO2 is being used as the causation for climate change and rise in temperatures, this would then seem a flawed argument of increasing CO2 = temperature rise. Maybe I have this wrong. While most of this discussion related to interglacial aspects it can also be inferred there is a corresponding relationship to now.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

That set of graphs on NASA show a flattening on the sea surface temp anomalies for the last 8 or so years. Yes the temps rose sharply for 30 years then flattened from 2000.

I stand corrected about the volcanic output.

I thought that was what you were refering to. Interesting but not relevant to the current situation. It is true that the Milankovich hypothesis has the current series of glacial/interclacials driven by changes in the Earth's orbital parameters. The correlation between orbital parameters and the temperature record over the last ca. 2.5Ma is so good that the issues we still have in understanding the mechanism are seen as an oportunity for further research rather than a reason to doubt the overall hypothesis.

Now, in a natural situation CO2 cannot be a primary driver of climate because the concentration of CO2 in the atm. does not change of its own accord. Orbital parameters do. So it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that temperatures first rise a bit which degasses the oceans a bit, thus increasing atmospheric CO2 which then pushes temperatures up a bit more. If CO2 did not provide this positive feedback the difference between glacial and interglacial temperature could not be as large as it is. Also remember that the lag being discussed is between the naturally-initiated temperature rise and the rise in CO2 conc. It is not a delay between the release of the CO2 and it's radiative forcing, which begins immediately (though the forcing may need to occur for some time before its effect can be clearly seen from the climate 'noise').

Of course the point is that we are no longer in a natural situation. Suddenly releasing carbon that has been sequestered over geological time has changed the situation.

[blink138 (Pat)]

"Why might astronomer buffs like those on this forum largely trust the summary of results that point to a Hubble constant within about the same degree of certainty but have trouble accepting the best concensus on climate change and it's likely causes?"

it is beacause Sir Huphrey Appleby did not want to change the hubble constant but he could certainly put forth a valid arguement against it, in the fullness of time of course
statistics can be manipulated in many ways, as humpy says you just have to ask the right questions for a satisfactory outcome
pat

[Paul Haese]

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

I see that you are trying to do a personal summary of some of the available research which is certainly a good idea...but with great respect Paul, why do you doubt the IPCC's summary of what I gather would be far more reports and studies on the issue than you will ever likely lay your hands or eye's on? I am not trying to be smart here, just curious.

Why might astronomer buffs like those on this forum largely trust the summary of results that point to a Hubble constant within about the same degree of certainty but have trouble accepting the best concensus on climate change and it's likely causes?

And much more importantly, why would anyone think that a government should doubt it...?

Mike

Your point is well taken Mike. I guess while I generally tend towards human climate influenced denial I am always looking for more facts. There are plenty of scientists out there that are regularly featured across the planet that reject CO2 and temperature. When I say regular I mean a couple of times a year. There is some denial in the scientific world. My sister is a scientist and some of her friends are climate scientist and of those a couple are unconvinced but still searching for the answer. That is where I am I guess. I am fairly certain I will never understand what is going on, because I did not train as a climate scientist; however the logic I learnt at Uni taught me to question blanket truths and not to believe everything the government says. Politicians cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed, much less get the information right. Organisations tend to have an agenda too. Despite what many think is a blantant truth, I still see variability that bucks against the trends. I am however, happy to be proven wrong though at any time. If so why bother with a tax, why not just get on with reducing emissions by actions. People still need to heat and cool their homes, cook, keep food and be entertained. Punishing them for not having a choice of power is not the answer.

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

I thought that was what you were refering to. Interesting but not relevant to the current situation. It is true that the Milankovich hypothesis has the current series of glacial/interclacials driven by changes in the Earth's orbital parameters. The correlation between orbital parameters and the temperature record over the last ca. 2.5Ma is so good that the issues we still have in understanding the mechanism are seen as an oportunity for further research rather than a reason to doubt the overall hypothesis.

Now, in a natural situation CO2 cannot be a primary driver of climate because the concentration of CO2 in the atm. does not change of its own accord. Orbital parameters do. So it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that temperatures first rise a bit which degasses the oceans a bit, thus increasing atmospheric CO2 which then pushes temperatures up a bit more. If CO2 did not provide this positive feedback the difference between glacial and interglacial temperature could not be as large as it is. Also remember that the lag being discussed is between the naturally-initiated temperature rise and the rise in CO2 conc. It is not a delay between the release of the CO2 and it's radiative forcing, which begins immediately (though the forcing may need to occur for some time before its effect can be clearly seen from the climate 'noise').

Of course the point is that we are no longer in a natural situation. Suddenly releasing carbon that has been sequestered over geological time has changed the situation.

Yes I see your point. Still percentage of CO2 at present does seem quite at odds with increase in temp given that it is currently 0.004 parts per million. Logic does seem correct that this small amount has the capacity to change temperatures by such a large variation up till now. I thought the lag might be of significant interest though.

[PeterM]

Oh dear, time to get "The End is Nigh" sandwich boards dusted off while listening to REMs "Its the end of the world as we know it" and watching Lost In Space, to hear Dr Smith shouting "Were all doomed, were all doomed"
Climate change is a given it has been going on for billions of years. Man made CO2 is looking more and more like the cop out that brings a (revenue) tax with it along with some tidy incomes for ongoing research. If you think this is the problem then take all yours cars off the roads, close the mines, close the power stations do it now. If it is so serious why don't Governments start legislation NOW to impose absolutely massive fines on anyone who produces any CO2 over a certain amount, and don't give me the oh because we need to change over to other power/fuels, again if it is a serious as you imagine then a massive response is needed today isn't it? I am not denying we need to clean our planet up that's a given but pollution and man made CO2 are different animals. And IF there is a problem you will all be happy when the carbon tax is in place and everyone can sleep safe and sound at night only waking when they hear the tooth fairy enter the room, come on.
PeterM.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Your point is well taken Mike.

I guess while I generally tend towards human climate influenced denial

Here in lies the problem mate....

That is where I am I guess. I am fairly certain I will never understand what is going on.... because I did not train as a climate scientist.

Sorry I just don' get it, so why do you question teh findings of a body who's job it is to do the assesment of the the available scientific evidence for you, something you clearly wish you had a handle on?

however the logic I learnt at Uni taught me to question blanket truths

The issue of climate change is not a blanket truth, the overall assesment of the data is very clear, how can you doubt this even for a second? Again with all due respect, even considering fringe claimed anomolies like phosphorus from weapons and Co2 from volcanoes etc is at best kind of clutching at straws, like you really don't want to change your mind no matter what..?

and not to believe everything the government says. Politicians cannot be trusted to lie straight in bed, much less get the information right.

It's not the governemnt that is telling you that climate change is real and humans are causing it it is the IPCC et al, the government is just acting on this information to develop policy to tackle it...?

Despite what many think is a blantant truth, I still see variability that bucks against the trends. I am however, happy to be proven wrong though at any time.

To be honest I think you have a bias wall up to prevent this ...read the IPCC report check the references, then compare this to the web site that this thread started from, compare it against The Bolt Report, compare it against, 2UE and 2GB radio anouncer claims etc that are heavily influencing the public opinion on this. Keep your university training hat on and pretend you are doing an asignment and review the available research and see what your advice would be to your lecturer on climate change and its causes. Remember, I am happy that the IPCC has done this but you are not, so try it, do it properly.

Just an idea

Mike

[Paul Haese]

Funny thing is Mike, I started from your position. I saw an inconvient truth and believed we were responsible. However I have seen and read many things that raise some serious doubt. The IPCC has from my reading omitted several areas. The CO2 lag is one such area. Geologically if the lag is any indicator then we are maybe looking towards glaciation. That is if the ice cores are correct. I tend to agree with Peter, used as an instigation for a new tax because "we spent too much money" (my emphasis) on the GFC.

The bottom line is just like Peter, get on with sorting out the problem via legislation or stop talking crap to us.

This is all really a matter of opinion though. You think you're right because of what you have read and I think I am right because what I have read. If I have a different opinion to the main stream I am screamed down as being wrong. If I am right and all of you are wrong we are going to be taxed for no good reason and that is what I revile most.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Funny thing is Mike, I started from your position. I saw an inconvient truth and believed we were responsible. However I have seen and read many things that raise some serious doubt. The IPCC has from my reading omitted several areas. The CO2 lag is one such area. Geologically if the lag is any indicator then we are maybe looking towards glaciation. That is if the ice cores are correct. I tend to agree with Peter, used as an instigation for a new tax because "we spent too much money" (my emphasis) on the GFC.

The bottom line is just like Peter, get on with sorting out the problem via legislation or stop talking crap to us.

This is all really a matter of opinion though. You think you're right because of what you have read and I think I am right because what I have read. If I have a different opinion to the main stream I am screamed down as being wrong. If I am right and all of you are wrong we are going to be taxed for no good reason and that is what I revile most.

I am not screaming you down, honest

The IPCC just collated the data, sure they had guidelines on what to include but it is the best avialable and incredibly comprehensive source for govermnents to use, that is my point, regardless of what members of the public think, the government has to use the IPCC et al reports and that's just how it is I am affraid.

Public opinion will not really change the scientific evidence pool.... just the government

Mike

[gregbradley]

My view on the science is use your own experience as a guide - what have you observed with the weather over time?

A lot here are mature age so they have the unique ability to recall what the weather patterns were like when they were younger compared to now. Bypasses all the science, theories and graphs.

My experience living in Sydney the bulk of my life is that Sydney has always been a hot city. But it was not as hot earlier in the year as it has become often (40C days in October for instance) and that 40C+ days are more common now than in earlier years. Also the weather can be more volatile and heavy downpours that were considered 1 in a 100 year event now occur about every 4-5 years. So change is most definitely occuring from my experience. That doesn't mean 1 year we don't have a cooler summer - more the longer term pattern.

That is nothing to do with theories or science approaches to the issue nor seeks to say what caused it.

Greg.

[AndrewJ]

I dont know what the answer is,
but unless curbing population growth is honestly put into
the discussion, its all moot, emissions will just skyrocket
with population growth.
Until the pollies address this, they aren't doing their jobs.

Also, heard the PM talking on the news tonight re
how the TAX will be short term and will eventually
morph into a trading scheme.
Now i dont know what others think,
but wasn't it traders that have got us into our current "financial" mess.
Heaven help us if they are allowed to trade something so
diaphanous as "carbon".
Imagine the shortselling possibilities
Sell what you don't have to people who don't know what they are buying, and skim a bit off the side as "fees"???
Sounds a bit like the US property loans scandal,
but simpler.

Andrew

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Paul Haese

Yes I see your point. Still percentage of CO2 at present does seem quite at odds with increase in temp given that it is currently 0.004 parts per million. Logic does seem correct that this small amount has the capacity to change temperatures by such a large variation up till now. I thought the lag might be of significant interest though.

Deja vue all over again.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...&postcount=274

[blink138 (Pat)]

"My view on the science is use your own experience as a guide - what have you observed with the weather over time?" quote

our human population "in time terms" is a piss in the ocean
and our climate records can in no way point to anything concrete in what is a negligible amount of time


"A lot here are mature age so they have the unique ability to recall what the weather patterns were like when they were younger compared to now. Bypasses all the science, theories and graphs." quote

well unless our old timers are a few million years old they can tell us nothing about how the weather was so different in the"good old days"

weather, if i recall my high school years is averaged over two sunspot cycles or 22 years, so no matter how old a human can get we only really see 3 cycles!
nope climate change happens veeeeerrrry slloooowwwly, millenia really
pat