Who here is a global warming skeptic?

[LaurieAG]

My arithmetic says 32%.

 

And if you take 32% off you will have 68% remaining meaning that your original bill (68% of your current bill) is close to 50% higher (32/68) now than your original bill. Basically if you pay $10 for a product that has $5 tax you are being taxed 100% not 50%.

 

Right now in Brisbane the temperature is around 29 degrees centigrade while the current temperatures for the other state capitals (and the ACT) are:-

 

Melbourne 41

Adelaide 44

Hobart 42

Sydney 25

Perth 25

Canberra 36

 

This heatwave is being caused by a flow of hot air (it's not el Nino or la Nina but neutral patterns) being funneled down the center of Australia between highs on the east and west coasts. Have a look on google earth and see where the hot cities are with respect to antarctica. Brisbane is sub tropical and the majority of the remainder are temperate.

 

Kevin Rudd, the previous Australian PM took an integrated global carbon credit trading system to Copenhagen and dropped it after the rest of the world failed to jump on board. He was then rolled by Australias current PM, the person who promised that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led, who then introduced a carbon tax.

 

Incidentally these heat waves have been going on like this down south for the past 4-5 years and Brisbane has failed to get much over 35 degrees c during the same period. Victoria has a large brown coal burning power station industry that supplies the deficiencies in the power grid for most of the other states. Why are the heatwaves mainly ocurring where they do and, considering that the most long line power being transmitted to other states is lost in the generating state, what does the Victorian power generation industry have to do with it?

 

Economically it probably has something to do with some dodgy financing many years ago. Basically if you factor off the net present value of the depreciation of the power asset you are buying/building into the purchase package you can not use the depreciation of the asset (compensation for loss of value of the asset over time) to maintain the asset and you must run your operation as hard and fast as you can to optimise profits.

Edited January 4, 2013 by LaurieAG

[LaurieAG]

While I am sceptical about Global Warming I really think the current problem could be better described as some sort of Global Temperature Imbalance and human heat generation has something to do with it.

[John Cuthber]

While I am sceptical about Global Warming I really think the current problem could be better described as some sort of Global Temperature Imbalance and human heat generation has something to do with it.

 

Have you tried doing the maths? It can be very informative.

The earth gets about 10^22 J per day from the sun.

It varies a lot; in the US typical energy consumption is about 10KW

Let's assume that everyone on the planet uses much as the average for China which is about 2.5KW

That's about 2* 10^8 J per day each

or with 7 bn of us,

1.5*10^18 Watts

So we use about 0.00015 times as much energy as the sun provides us with.

 

of course, a fair bit of that energy is from renewable sources so it should be subtracted off, but it's not going to affect things much.

The energy that we release into the environment is very small compared to how much we get from the sun.

 

Our energy use is about half the energy released by radioactive decay of natural uranium and thorium etc. in the earth.

 

I still don't understand why this topic is controversial.

We know that carbon dioxide blocks outgoing IR from the earth.

We know that the earth's surface is warming

We know that there is more CO2 than there used to be

We know that it's from our use of fossil fuels.

 

It's like saying "I know that we put another blanket on the bed, and I know that I'm now warmer. But I don't know if I'm warmer because I put another blanket on."

[LaurieAG]

Hi John,

 

While NZ is just as far away from Brisbane as Hobart is NZ was experiencing much cooler weather than southern Australia.

 

From 2004 to 2008 Queensland had the heatwaves and now the heatwaves have moved 2000 kilometers south.

 

No tax system is going to prevent what happens when these hot flows of air actually get down to antarctica so we should probably be doing a bit of forensic meteorology and working out exactly where these hot flows come from and target the sources.

 

The forecasts for Australian capitals today compared with yesterday are:-

 

Melbourne 25, -16 change

Adelaide 32, -12 change

Hobart 25, -16 change

Sydney 29, + 4 change

Perth 37, + 12 change

Canberra 39, + 3 change

Brisbane 29, no change

Edited January 4, 2013 by LaurieAG

[overtone]

And if you take 32% off you will have 68% remaining meaning that your original bill (68% of your current bill) is close to 50% higher (32/68) now than your original bill.

Taking 32% off of a higher number is not the same thing as adding 15% twice to a lower one (you don't get back to the original number) and your comparison of the two percentages is confused ( 32% of a whole is not 50% of that whole).

 

Try an example: if your original bill was 1 dollar, your bill after the 15% and 15.6% increases (your description of what happened) will be 1X1.15X1.156 = 1.32 and change. That's a 32% increase (OK, 33% with normal rounding).

 

You probably should not base your ideas on your current intuitive handling of things like depreciation and sunk costs and so forth.

Edited January 5, 2013 by overtone

[John Cuthber]

Hi John,

 

While NZ is just as far away from Brisbane as Hobart is NZ was experiencing much cooler weather than southern Australia.

 

From 2004 to 2008 Queensland had the heatwaves and now the heatwaves have moved 2000 kilometers south.

 

No tax system is going to prevent what happens when these hot flows of air actually get down to antarctica so we should probably be doing a bit of forensic meteorology and working out exactly where these hot flows come from and target the sources.

 

The forecasts for Australian capitals today compared with yesterday are:-

 

Melbourne 25, -16 change

Adelaide 32, -12 change

Hobart 25, -16 change

Sydney 29, + 4 change

Perth 37, + 12 change

Canberra 39, + 3 change

Brisbane 29, no change

I look forward to an explanation of why you think any of that is important.

[LaurieAG]

I wouldn't expect anything John, if you can't actually think for yourself and cannot ask pertinent questions then no explanation can change your opinion.

[iNow]

The pertinent question was quite clear. Why do you think the content of that previous post of yours was relevant and in what way(s) did you feel it was important to a discussion on climate change?

[LaurieAG]

The pricing mechanism calculations for the Australian Carbon tax are an indication of the science involved.

 

The carbon price (for the budget figures) as set out in the plan would increase Renewable Energy while forcing the worst polluting power stations out of the market. These dirty operators would be paid to stop polluting.

 

Unfortunately all the economics only works when the exact carbon tax rate estimated is used.

 

As a result of these modelling restriction there are 3 things that can be determined:-

 

(1) On half the budgeted Carbon tax rate (a) electricity prices rise substantially, (b) polluting power generation plants become economic and (c ) the Renewable Energy Targets (RET) put pressure on electricity prices so business puts pressure on the government to reduce the RET.

 

(2) On double the budgeted Carbon tax rate (a) electricity prices rise substantially more than (1), polluting power plants become uneconomic and RET becomes becomes viable.

 

(3) The current Carbon pricing model as used in Australia will only work to promote the reduction of dirty power pollution and promote the RET when the market Carbon price is at least at its budgeted rate or more. Either way electricity prices increase but only one price range will give an environmental dividend.

 

Sorry, this model does not work with the European rate and the market will do what it likes whenever it likes.

 

That is why we need an integrated global system and people who think outside the self serving political square.

Taking 32% off of a higher number is not the same thing as adding 15% twice to a lower one (you don't get back to the original number) and your comparison of the two percentages is confused ( 32% of a whole is not 50% of that whole).

 

Try an example: if your original bill was 1 dollar, your bill after the 15% and 15.6% increases (your description of what happened) will be 1X1.15X1.156 = 1.32 and change. That's a 32% increase (OK, 33% with normal rounding).

 

You probably should not base your ideas on your current intuitive handling of things like depreciation and sunk costs and so forth.

 

You may not be aware of the 10% GST calculation where a 10% tax is added onto the price of most goods and services.

 

While the actual calculation is based on the original amount plus the 10% tax, the calculation used is by back calculating from the end price to the pre tax price.

 

The reason why this is done is that rounding (down) will not give you the exact calculation result without fractions so going from the after tax price and using normal rounding (up) is the easiest way to calculate the correct amounts of the original price before tax.

 

While the 32% figure might be the politically palatable figure the real answer is a close to a 50% increase when compared with your bill 12 months ago.

Edited January 6, 2013 by LaurieAG

[John Cuthber]

Still waiting.

[LaurieAG]

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=china+blizzard&oq=china+bli&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l2j0i10l2.78.3210.0.6401.5.5.0.0.0.1.450.1739.2-2j1j2.5.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.t0rbFLtJPXI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY&fp=806291c8bec8badb&bpcl=40096503&biw=1366&bih=714

 

Still waiting.

 

So am I.

 

BTW, you will be waiting for quite a while unless you start your own thread.

Edited January 7, 2013 by LaurieAG

[John Cuthber]

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=china+blizzard&oq=china+bli&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l2j0i10l2.78.3210.0.6401.5.5.0.0.0.1.450.1739.2-2j1j2.5.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.t0rbFLtJPXI&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dGY&fp=806291c8bec8badb&bpcl=40096503&biw=1366&bih=714

 

 

So am I.

 

BTW, you will be waiting for quite a while unless you start your own thread.

Why do you think I should start my own thread so you can explain an apparently off- topic post which you made in this thread?

 

Why do you think Australian weather variations from day to day have anything much to do with the net energy flux of the whole earth?

 

Do you understand that the heat that people use is tiny compared to that received from the sun?

 

And, perhaps you might care to explain the ad hom, while you are at it.

Edited January 7, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

While the 32% figure might be the politically palatable figure the real answer is a close to a 50% increase when compared with your bill 12 months ago.

Then it wasn't two 15% increases. Political palatability has nothing to do with it - you're talking about arithmetic.

You may not be aware of the 10% GST calculation where a 10% tax is added onto the price of most goods and services.

 

While the actual calculation is based on the original amount plus the 10% tax' date=' the calculation used is by back calculating from the end price to the pre tax price. [/quote'] So the "actual calculation" is not the "calculation used" - how does that work?

 

Using my one dollar example, by my calculation based on your information of two consecutive increases of 15% and 15.6% respectively, we have a price of 1.33 dollars (rounding conventionally). If we work by your description of apparently fraudulant taxation, the first dollar was 85% of the first increased price, and that amount was 84.4% of the second increased price. That yields a price of 1.39 dollars after rounding (which has to be done, as the result is fractional) - a 39% increase, in normal language, brought about by consecutive increases of about 17.6% and about 18.5%.

 

The reason why this is done is that rounding (down) will not give you the exact calculation result without fractions so going from the after tax price and using normal rounding (up) is the easiest way to calculate the correct amounts of the original price before tax.

In the first place' date=' taking 10% of a number is just as likely to give you a fractional answer whether you subtract it or add it.

 

In the second, you are talking about either outright fraud or fractions of the smallest coin in your system - coinage was invented to deal with fractional pricing. So you can't get from 32% to 50% of the whole price in that manner with that motive, unless you are dealing with something whose entire price is less than a couple of pennies.

 

Again: that kind of intuition displayed will serve you poorly in assessing issues of depreciation and sunk costs, long term amortization of purchased assets, etc, and is entirely irrelevant to the issue of global warming.

 

The pricing mechanism calculations for the Australian Carbon tax are an indication of the science involved.

No, they aren't. Bad Australian politics has nothing to do with the findings of good climate science.

Edited January 7, 2013 by overtone

[esbo]

I am a it's not an issueist so to speak.

 

The main points are.

 

1. We will not avoid burning all the fossil fuel anyway merely delay it.

 

2. There is no evidence warming is bad overall infact all I can see are positive aspects.

 

 

So CO2 is a none issue, you wll be <insert expletive here>ing glad of the warmth the CO2 provides when all the fossil fuel runs out!!

[iNow]

2. There is no evidence warming is bad overall infact all I can see are positive aspects.

Your personal incredulity and ignorance of the topic is not really relevant, though, now is it?

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm

The negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health, economy and environment far outweigh any positives.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic.

 

Detailed lists of pros and cons of warming available at each link above.

 

 

 

 

[ralfy]

Skepticism takes place by default. What is more important is to look at likelihood and to see that in light of policies, if not in light of related problems.

[iNow]

What is more important is to look at likelihood and to see that in light of policies, if not in light of related problems.

 

I disagree that likelihood is the relevant issue here (especially given the mountains of supporting evidence and information that's been accumulated on the topic for the last 7 decades). IMO, the issue is magnitude of risk or potential negative impact if that risk goes unaddressed yet is ultimately realized.

 

If we fail to take steps and implement policies to mitigate the risks of a shifting climate... and if we should happen to be wrong (the climate DOES change)... then the consequences and suffering and needless death and turmoil could be catastrophic. However, if we do take steps to implement policies to mitigate the risk of a shifting climate... and if we should happen to be wrong (the climate does NOT change)... then the consequences are that we've made a more sustainable and cleaner environment and put lots of people back to work and earning solid incomes and prepared ourselves for a risk that fortunately never came to pass.

 

Perhaps the latter of these would be executed under false pretenses (again, IF we're wrong about the impacts of a warming climate, which we almost certainly are not), but the risks of a false positive are far greater than the risks of a false negative on the subject of climate change mitigation strategies.

 

It's better to carry an umbrella in case it rains, even if the day later turns out to be sunny, than to leave the umbrella at home and get caught out in a storm unprepared. Forecasters show a 98% chance of showers. Let's grab the damned umbrella, already.

Edited January 10, 2013 by iNow

[ralfy]

By likelihood, I refer to the time when events take place and extent (such as sea levels rising to a certain extent by a given decade), which is the same as magnitude of risks. And according to this lecturer, the likelihood of such events taking place earlier and the extent is increasing:

 

Edited January 11, 2013 by ralfy

[LaurieAG]

The pertinent question was quite clear. Why do you think the content of that previous post of yours was relevant and in what way(s) did you feel it was important to a discussion on climate change?

 

Political solutions are not real solutions, as many Australians well know. A Carbon tax that makes unclean energy profitable at the expense of clean energy actually causes more harm than good.

[iNow]

Political solutions are not real solutions, as many Australians well know.

 

Rubbish. What unadulterated crap that is.

 

You brush aside without introspection or maturity the idea that governments can ever implement solutions to problems, and you do so without ever bothering to focus on the relevant factor which is the details and specifics of each individual plan.

 

Sure, I stipulate that maybe the Aussie parliament screwed the pooch on some legislation, and maybe even this carbon tax was ill advised (I think it was quite well crafted given the resistance to this issue actually, but whatever), but that's hardly evidence in support of your blunted, crude, and over-generalized assertion that "political solutions are not real."

[John Cuthber]

 

Political solutions are not real solutions, as many Australians well know. A Carbon tax that makes unclean energy profitable at the expense of clean energy actually causes more harm than good.

Bollocks.

Things like the clean air acts were political solutions.

Seat belt laws were too.

Granted the "law of unintended consequences" often affects the outcome, but to say that political solutions don't work is simply absurd.

 

Anyway, could you please answer my earlier questions

 

Why do you think I should start my own thread so you can explain an apparently off- topic post which you made in this thread?

 

Why do you think Australian weather variations from day to day have anything much to do with the net energy flux of the whole earth?

 

Do you understand that the heat that people use is tiny compared to that received from the sun?

Edited January 12, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

Political solutions are not real solutions, as many Australians well know.

These Australians appear to feel vicitmized by bad politics, no?

 

What "real solutions" would you recommend to the problem of such victimization, that are not political?

 

And why is such a concern being posted in a thread on global warming scepticism? By posting in this venue, you seem to imply that your take on some recent Australian politics has some relevance to the existence of global warming due to the human produced boost in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you actually believe that?

 

As far as skepticism re the warming and its cause, my own touchstone is the differential warming of winter nights vs summer days in my geographical area. The winter nights are significantly changed recently relative to the summer days , and I have yet to run into even a plausible hypothesis for that which does not give primacy to greenhouse gas effects. I'm willing to entertain them, but there simply are none.

 

One of the consequences has been the notable increase in the frequency of rain in January, not matched by anything in July. What used to happen one year in seven, measured over a 180 year span, has since 1995 or thereabouts happened every single year of the past fifteen or more (I lose count) consecutive, most recently yesterday.

 

The local politics are pretty bad (I live in Michelle Bachmann's home district), and many tax proposals are foolish here, but they don't make it rain.

 

[LaurieAG]

I have reconsidered my position and, In a perverse lateral kind of way, I do certainly agree with you 3 that the current political solution to 'global warming' will reap excellent results within a very short time span, albeit with much collateral damage.

 

I mean, who would ever have thought that by collectively trashing the global financial system to such an extent that the odds of recession in the EU and/or the US are almost odds on, with huge guaranteed profits waiting to be made on the down side, and the resulting emission reductions from the mass closure of industries and other losses being socialised, are already starting to pay dividends.

 

I'll let you 3 tell everybody else the good news.

 

BTW, there is evidence of continuous human occupation for the past 8000 years within 5-10 miles of where I live. During the recent 'heat wave' the average national maximum temperature was 40 degrees c while my local average was 30 degrees c during this same period. Several of the other state capitals went from 11+ to 11- average degree maximums over 3 days during this 'heat wave' period. My region has an anti mediteranean climate which means that it normally rains in summer and is dry in winter with similar temperature ranges. There are only three other areas in the world with similar climates, east Madagascar, Saudi Arabia (east side of mountains) and along the eastern side of the Andes in South America.

 

The 10 degree difference between 30 degrees average temp and 40 degrees average temp was mainly due to a combination of humidity and wind that resulted in evaporative cooling with little rain. We seem to be having a problem with the water level within the Great Artesian Basin part of our national evaporative cooling system. With any luck a good top up from the coming monsoon will help sort things out.

[overtone]

I have reconsidered my position and' date=' In a perverse lateral kind of way, I do certainly agree with you 3 that the current political solution to 'global warming' will reap excellent results within a very short time span, albeit with much collateral damage. [/quote'] Your'e on your own there - nobody here but you has bothered with any of that.

 

My objection is to your assertion that bad politics has anything to do with the basic physical effects of the anthropogenic CO2 boost, in particular its tendency to warm the surface of the planet. We have such a boost, it is causing global warming among other problems, and none of your posting about politics is even relevant to that basic physical situation.

[LaurieAG]

Here's a quote from the foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council that was published in todays Australian newspaper (about flawed science and the government owned Australian Broadcasting Commission) .

 

While I was writing this article, the ABC reported with some fanfare the anticipated publication of an article by Australian scientists (Joelle Gergis et al) that purported to show unprecedented warming in the southern hemisphere, a result heralding that the IPCC was right and that AGW was indeed a major problem for the world. The paper was said to be Australia's contribution to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC, and its public announcement just met the closing date for published work that could be considered in that report (Any critiques or rebuttals of the paper would not be published in time). A good investigative journalist would have been cautious, remembering that any international meeting about the environment (Rio + 20 was about to start) seemed to be preceded by a flurry of publications showing that things environmental had reached crisis point. He or she may have wondered how good this paper really was. In any case it was quickly and abruptly withdrawn from the journal that had agreed to publish it: an experienced sceptic had shown that the methodology was badly flawed and the results meaningless. Did the ABC report the withdrawal of the paper, NO. It only placed a correction notice on its website after the event.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/us/politics/house-gop-agrees-to-lift-debt-ceiling-for-3-months.html?hp

Edited January 19, 2013 by LaurieAG