Tomorrow, leaders from 6 nations will meet in Sydney, Australia to discuss mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The group are a fascinating mix:
1. The United States, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and a super power.
2. India and China, the most populous nations on earth and emerging super powers.
3. South Korea and Japan, members of an alliance that plan to build a $16 billion nuclear fusion reactor in the south of France. Fusion is what powers the sun.
4. Australia, the other Kyoto recalcitrant and a country with a lot of natural resources including coal and uranium.
Together these six countries account for about half the world’s GDP, population, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
They have already decided that arbitary emissions targets (a central plank of Kyoto) will not be on the agenda. Instead they want to focus on developing, promoting and sharing new technologies including nuclear, hydrogen, fusion and solar.
The theme for the meeting tomorrow was perhaps forshadowed by Quigqing Zhao, First Secretary, Chinese Embassy in Australia, in his address to a climate change conference in Canberra last April, click here for full text. He said,
In China’s school textbook, there is a sentence which almost all Chinese adults believe to be true and I think most children
between 10 and 18 can recite, that is “Science and technology
is the most powerful impetus to productivity”. If I were one
of the editors, I would propose to add one more sentence
somewhere in the text book, that “Science and technology is
the most reasonable way to address climate change”.
We need a new approach – a new focus. With just Kyoto, global emissions will be some 40 percent higher in 2010 than in 1990.
I wish the new Asia-Pacific Partnerhsip on Clean Development and Climate well in Sydney at their first official meeting tomorrow.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade outlines government policies on climate change and the new Partnership at its website, click here. For information on tomorrow’s meeting click here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Of course why would you support the Asia-Pacific Partnerhsip if climate change is not happening nor important.
Have not many advocates on this blog informed us that climate changes isn’t happening (it’s been cooling since 1998, we can’t trust any of the data etc) – it’s all a green/leftie/commie/UN/world domination plot and/or
if you have intellectually advanced to the point that we are warming – that it doesn’t matter as we can adapt, it will be beneficial, won’t cause any problems or the cost of mitigation is ruinous.
Kyoto also allows technology advancement. However, since kyoto does not specify any particular technology, the market itself is able to select the best technology or approach to reducing emissions. This is an economically efficient way to tackle global warming.
the asia-pacific partnership rhetoric is a second rate approach next to kyoto, because they are proposing to pick the winners themselves. bureaucrats picking winners!?
Don’t buy this crap that the partnership is promoting a technology approach instead of a regulation approach.
Rather, the Asia-Pacific Partnership is a “subsidise clean coal and nuclear power with a feel-good but useless cash payout for solar” – an economically inefficient approach that funnels taxpayer dollars to these industries, at the expense of other technologies or approaches that may be more competitive (wind energy and energy efficiency – both advances in technology – come to mind).
As compared to kyoto and emissions trading, which provide clear targets, certainty for investment, and a level playing field so that THE BEST technologies will prevail, the asia-pacific partnership are creating uncertainty, controversy, and a skewed playing field – all these things will hurt investment in technologies and business related to co2, both producers and reducers of co2.
Kyoto took a decade to negotiate. THe Asia-pacific partnership will also quickly learn a lesson that they should already know: international negotiations are complex, time consuming and are hard won. Rejecting an agreement that was ten years in the making to start again is lunacy – ian campbell is already admitting that it will take years for the partnership to produce anything.
I wish them well too, but i am profoundly skeptical that they will foster anything good from such a bad rhetorical base.
you must be proud of me – skepticism is encouraged on this site, no?
Steve
…………………….
posted by Lachlan, as this site is having technical problems
Kyoto was developed by Eurospivs in a way that conveniently off loaded most of the EEC’s paper, packaging and housing related emissions to their third world suppliers. And they still could not meet their targets. It was then interpreted by the AGO here in Australia in a way that has bordered on treason.
Everything it has dealt with has been turned to crap. The IPCC had a “no disadvantage rule” to ensure that companies that took action early to curb their emissions would not miss out on incentives given out later. But no-one bothered to include farmers with thickenning that commenced prior to 1990. Indeed, even the use of the single year cut-off was a major disadvantage to Australia but proved rather convenient to Europe.
Any effort to focus on actual activities or technology that will curb emissions is infinitely more practical than Kyoto.
Ian – however if there are no set targets or commitments then everybody can continue emitting greenhouse gases saying that they are meeting their targets as the targets can change.
Also we have sufficient technology to reduce greenhouse gases now without waiting for ‘new’ technology. The current players do not like the current technology.
Strangely I find myself in agreement with Ian on the issue handling on Australia’s biosphere carbon which has “pseudo-balanced” the Kyoto books for a short period, while energy growth continues unrestrained.
No one ever stated that climate change was not happening – it’s just the hubristic nonesense of the greenies that asserts humans are changing it that is rejected.
IAn isn’t there a conspiracy theory website somewhere that you could post that kind of paranoid tripe on? Why don’t you write in to NExus magazine?
Australia and the US are part of the UNFCCC. We helped to negotiate kyoto.
And you should thank your lucky stars that there is any credit for forestry, given the controversy over its inclusion, and great uncertainty in quantifying land use change and forestry emissions.
Again, kyoto and emissions trading don’t avoid technological improvement. Rather, they allow the market to pick the best technologies, instead of govt bureacrats trying to pick whats best. How can you possibly argue that the latter is better?
Louis quiet a few posters have debated current change is happening – you pal Warwick says the terrstrial record is contaminated and incorrect. Others have said it’s cooling since 1998. Incidentally your last lot of posts on looneyworld are “amazing”. The biggest load of nonsense and misrepresentation I’ve ever seen. Obviously you don’t read all those good refs that Ender and I send you. You’re just writing whatever comes into your head. Stop smoking those herbs and do some research.
Kyoto has a couple of indisputable (in my opinion) flaws.
Firstly, a significant number of the ratifying countries are failing to meet their targets. Of those that are, at least some, such as Russia, are meeting their targets for reasons other than that they are concentrating on reducing emissions. (The Russian economy has contracted).
Secondly, because countries such as China and India are excluded, emission trading, and simple market forces, mean emissions can be transferred from one country to another, with no overall drop in emissions.
That’s just two obvious, commonsense observations that anyone can understand. So (in my opinion, anyway), it’s time to let Kyoto quietly fade away, and for those who feel reducing CO2 emissions is important, look for a practical alternative.
Kyoto just isn’t working.
Paul Williams
I absolutely agree with you. It has been self evident to anyone with half a brain for quite some time.Kyoto is basically is a poor solution to a poorly defined problem.
At least with the AP6 there are other efficiencies to be gained.
Hi Paul,
I don’t think either of those points you mentioned are fatal flaws for kyoto.
Point 1, that many countries are not meeting their targets. Perhaps because so much time has been wasted and so much uncertainty has been created by the constant attempts by countries like the US and Australia to scuttle kyoto, countries have not had enough time to see emissions trading in action to get results yet. they will in time. It is only in the past couple of years that emissions trading has been implemented. Imagine what it does for a country like, say, portugal when the US decides not to ratify. The uncertainty created for a little country and its industries from such a big player refusing to play is huge. Kyoto only came into force less than a year ago.
Point 2, that china and india etc are excluded. They are not excluded. There was always the possibility of them participating at a later date. However it was negotiated at the UNFCCC meetings that developing countries would not have binding targets in the first commitment period, since their economies are already low per capita emitters due to less development, and because they are less responsible for the problem – economically not a good argument, but ethically it makes perfect sense to me. They were always going to be encouraged to commit to targets at a later date.
i will add that both china and india are extremely advanced producers of renewable energy – much more than australia.
Regarding transfer of emissions to developing countries. this is quite simply not realistic. The targets for the first commitment period, when developing countries have no commitment, are not sufficiently onerous to drive industry from stable developed nations with low electricity prices (like australia) to volatile developing countries with their own raft of problems. THis is especially the case when countries like china and india are doing plenty to implement greenhouse lowering activities anyway. and if the US took some leadership on greenhouse, and helped to mop up uncertainty and stress the importance of greenhouse as an issue, then industry would get the message that the entire world would soon be working to reduce emissions, and they wouldn’t consider the expense of uprooting to another country for a questionable and possibly very temporary kyoto avoidance benefit.
Kyoto will work. all it is is a commitment. Now its up to countries to find the best ways to fulfil that commitment.
The AP6 will not find any other efficiencies (can you be more specific malcolm?) because there aren’t any. the most efficient way to reduce emissions is to let the market decide how to reduce emissions. the best way for the market to decide is with some form of emissions trading. emissions trading doesn’t work without a commitment to reduce emissions and targets. ie. you need a kyoto or an equivalent.
think about it. AP6 are going to take billions of taxpayer dollars and give it to the coal industry to clean up their act. Why can’t the coal industry work for emissions credits like everyone else? Why can’t they compete? Why do they need direct assistance at the expense of other technologies and applications?
Steve – It’s not like Kyoto has been sprung on the signatories. They’ve had plenty of time to begin reducing emissions, if they really intended to. And if it didn’t impose an unacceptable penalty on them, maybe they would have.
Similarly, if it is economically so beneficial to reduce emissions, then small countries should leap on the chance to enter the field without competition from the US.
If, as you say, China and India are reducing emissions anyway, then doesn’t that give weight to voluntary mechanisms, such as AP6 is mooted to be?
The facts that are available now point to Kyoto not working. Maybe that will change, but the likelihood of punitive, non-enforceable regulation leading to lasting benefit seems remote.
The Dirty Half Dozen
Today marks the start of the six-nation Asia Pacific Climate Conference in Sydney, Australia. The six nations in attendance are the world largest producers of greenhouse gases- US, Japan, China, South Korea, India and Australia. The express purpose of…
yes Louis, a number of the IPA mouthpieces on this blog have argued that climate change is not happening. Whether they mean natural climate change or anthropologically forced climate change isn’t always clear. Perhaps they should regroup and reassess their nomenclature and issue framing to best persuade the public of their agenda
Paul,
I think your argument is incorrect. In order for countries to begin reducing their emissions efficiently, kyoto needs to be in force. You need a target and emissions trading to reduce emissions efficiently. Sure, the governments of these countries could have been pumping billions of dollars into subsidised solutions prior to kyoto being implemented over the last few years, but that would not have been the most efficient way to go about tackling the problem. That would have cost them more money, and i can understand their trepidation in doing this.
YEs, I think the fact that China and India are already advanced in renewable energy does lend some weight to the appropriateness of a voluntary approach. However, its not enough – there are countless examples (and not just in climate change) of the ineffectiveness of voluntary schemes. A Business’ aim is to make money for shareholders. This is not a bad thing, but it means that long term problems do not get a look in when short term profits are the focus.
I’ve never said it is economically beneficial to reduce emissions. I’ve said that their are better and worse approaches. Kyoto and emissions trading is the better approach – it allows for efficient, market oriented action, rather than hefty government subsidies.
‘punitive, non-enforcable’ is a contradiction in terms.
I agree that there is no identifable mechanism at present to penalise a country that hasn’t met its target.
I would presume that, in the longer term, if a country is not pulling its weight, then it would face some form of embargo.
And in the end – the old atmosphere just integrates up the fluxes and forcings – and say “here’s your weather for today”.
The great irony in all this is that if the management of climate change was placed on a trully democratic footing, ie, one vote per citizen, then, on my calculations, The USA, China, India, Japan, Korea and Australia represent a majority vote of mankind.
Kyoto has been nothing more than an attempt by “unrepresentative euroswill” (thats a parliamentary term) to force their minority view on a sceptical majority.
Their coersion/extortion of Russia to ratify was a classic example.
For the record, Steve, both myself and Bill Burrows were on the AGO’s Greenhouse Inventory Consultative Panel on Land Use Change and Forestry. I wouldn’t for a moment claim to be any better than his armpit but our views of the devious machinations of the AGO are in full accord.
“Think objectively” (TO) advises that “… a number of the IPA mouthpieces on this blog have argued that climate change is not happening. Whether they mean natural climate change or anthropologically forced climate change isn’t always clear. Perhaps they should regroup and reassess their nomenclature and issue framing to best persuade the public of their agenda.
1. The phrase “IPA mouthpieces” is gratuitously offensive, and should be withdrawn. Especially as it is clearly meant to encompass our host, Jennifer, who has made it crystal clear that she writes here in a personal capacity. If you can’t accept that, then don’t presume to transgress on her tolerant hospitality.
2. “Climate change” is defined under the UN’s climate convention as meaning “human-induced climate change”.
2. This is hard to believe, but true. It is also so confusing that I agree with TO that therefore persons should be careful to always specify HUMAN-caused climate change when that is indeed what they are referring to, leaving the more general “climate change” available for its vernacular usage (i.e. meaning both natural and human-caused climate change, with no attribution of the relative proportions of each).
3. The “public’s view” of the climate debate is well reflected by the following extract from an Editorial in today’s Australian newspaper:
“The inaugural meeting of the (AP6) partnership may or may not live up to expectations, but it is a breath of fresh air compared with the haze environmentalists are producing. For starters, the jury is still out on what is happening to the climate and what is causing it. Distinguishing recent small changes in temperatures from natural variability is an inexact science. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen, but it is only one of many greenhouse gases and it has less impact on raising temperatures than the amount of water vapour and clouds in the air. There is controversy over how temperature is measured and the accuracy of the results. Given that political and economic solutions are needed to tackle climate-related issues, maybe it is time most climatologists took a bath.”
4. Because Greenpeace claims to be a science-based organisation, they would no doubt agree with this accurate summation of the climate issue.
Cathy
The Australian editorial as a representation of the public’s view: Bwahahahhahahah!
Was the EU extorting Russia? Or was Russia extorting the EU? Or was it standard negotiation between two parties for greatest benefit to both?
Ian, who is Bill Burrows? Hope he has nice armpits 🙂
Steve – I will admit to not understanding how carbon trading will lead to efficient reduction of emissions. If it is cheaper to trade your emissions to another country than to become more efficient at reducing emissions, how does that help you become more efficient? In any case, unless there is a penalty imposed greater than either the cost of buying carbon credits or investing in emission reduction, where is the incentive to do either?
The reality is that only governments can impose such penalties, and any government that does so is flirting with being in opposition.
So, as I see it, Kyoto will do little to alter climate change, and governments that enforce Kyoto targets on their industries will probably lose office. Regardless of how Kyoto SHOULD work, inconvenient reality means it won’t (in my opinion).
Steve appears to be having a hissy fit.
Could he please explain what sentence or phrase in the Australian’s quoted view on climate is incorrect, and why.
Cathy
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/pm-pledges-100m-to-help-climate/2006/01/12/1136956272202.html
The Australian Governments attempts to pick winners and in the process waste taxpayer money continue, with another $100 million (may as well flush it down the toilet, seriously) spent on range of support subsidies across a variety of industries.
Instead, we could be setting up and emissions trading scheme, a target, and then letting the market do the work to find the best solution.
Jennifer, you are being quiet on this thread, I’m interested your opinion on this stuff. What do you think is the best way to deal with global warming?
Cathy, couldn’t be bothered, there are plenty of comments on this blog already to refute that editorial. look out for ender’s and phil done’s posted links in multiple threads. happy searching!
Paul, yep, you are definitely highlighting weaknesses and challenges, i won’t dispute that. Especially regarding the penalities for non-compliance. that’s a tough one, and does require some political courage.
But still think it is the best way, if you are serious about tackling the problem.
To believe that carbon trading is efficient, you need to believe that a market is better at deciding the best course of action than government. So if you put a price on carbon, then the most competitive solutions and technologies will thrive, and the dodgy or expensive ones will not. This is kyoto (assuming people take it seriously and are punished for non-compliance).
The alternative is to promote new technologies. this means using taxpayer money to fund research and development and demonstrations and trials. I’m talking billions of dollars here.
But what if the technologies that the government is deciding to fund (clean coal, geosequestration mainly) are inneffective or wind up being really expensive? That is the risk with the AP6 approach.
Subsidies can help good industries, they can also prop up crap industries. Better to establish a price on carbon and let the market decide, may the best technologies win!
I see.
So it seems that the Australian’s editorial stands.
Cathy
Cathy – the danger of the Editorial in the Australian is that while it sounds reasonable and balanced it is factually wrong on several points giving a misleading view of AGW.
1. “For starters, the jury is still out on what is happening to the climate and what is causing it.”
I am sorry the jury is not out on what is causing the rise in temperatures. Most if not all climate scientists think that human produced greenhouse gases are the cause and there is clear evidence of this. The resulting climate change is in doubt as no-one can predict this.
2. “Distinguishing recent small changes in temperatures from natural variability is an inexact science”
No it is not. The signal is small but the statistical technique is exact.
3. “The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen, but it is only one of many greenhouse gases and it has less impact on raising temperatures than the amount of water vapour and clouds in the air”
That is partly true however water vapour contributes about 65% with the others supplying the balance. CO2 however hangs around and accumulates in the atmosphere so what we are emitting is contributing more.
4. “There is controversy over how temperature is measured and the accuracy of the results”
No there isn’t at least within the professional scientific community. A tiny minority maintains that the temperature record is contaminated with urban heat islands however they fail to explain how sea level temperatures and upper troposphere temperatures are rising in accordance with theory and models.
So what appears to be reasonable is nothing more that the tiny minority of skeptics incorrect arguments recycled to make what seems to be a balanced article when really it is a pile of BS.
Dear Ender,
You need to confront science reality, and not base your view on a “consensus of scientists” that doesn’t exist except in your imagination.
1. It is a matter of fact, and abundant public record, that all aspects of climate change and its causation are currently the subject of vigorous debated, as indeed they should be.
A human impact on global climate is as yet unmeasurable, and there is no consensus whatever regarding its likely magnitude.
Just today, we have learned for the first time, for example, that plants emit methane, and may be responsible for up to 30% of global methane production: got that factored into your models yet?
Our ignorance of even basic climate matters remains profound, and for sure there are other undiscovered factors yet for us to consider.
The jury is not only out; it’s widely dispersed and out of sight.
2. Whether the statistical technique is sound is irrelevant to the point. Again, it is a true statement that measuring temperature trends is an inexact science.
The various alternative ways of calculating the average temperature trend over the last 25 years yield estimated temperature increases of between 0.1C and 0.2C/decade. Natural variability in temperature change over the last 10 thousand years has proceeded at between -0.3C and +0.3C/ decade.
The Australian is therefore quite right to comment on the difficulty of disentangling the human from the natural signal, and to call this “inexact science”.
3. As you concede, the Australian’s statement on carbon dioxide is accurate.
4. There are indeed large measures of disagreement as to the adequacy of our statistics of global average temperature change.
First, the ground thermometer record is biased in manifold ways, of which you mention only one (heat island effect); the lack of ocean coverage is another major problem, as is the lack of full disclosure as to how the records are processed.
Second, the more modern accurate weather balloon and satellite based methods of temperature measurement so far only provide short time series. One can say virtually nothing useful about LONG TERM climate change trends (as opposed to short term cycles) from instrument records that are less than 50 years long.
I conclude that The Australian is right on all counts, and much closer to both science reality and public opinion than are your own views.
Cathy
Cathy – you’re way out of step with science reality and the state of the science. You’re listening to contrarian transmissions which have high noise to signal ratio.
Australian surface and global surface temps are up, ocean temps are up, Arctic melt, worldwide glacial melt on the majority of glaciers, power function of storms in all ocean basins doubled, species changing in timing of behaviour and mating worldwide. Mechanisms – isn’t solar, orbital or volcanic. GCM models reproduce last 100 hundred years temperature trends quite well, but you need to put solar + greenhouse + volcanic forcings to get it right as some forcings are important at different times in the century. Biospheric feedbacks story will make more greenhouse forcing not less. Satellites and radiosondes agree with surface measurements.
What more do you want – it’s all over for rational sceptics. And 2005 level with 1998 and not an EL Nino year.
All that stuff about disclosure is b/s – ask and you shall find.
The exact endpoint is not known but bounded (SRES scenarios). It depends what humanity does about GHG emissions if anything.
The Ian Mott AGO Land Use and Forestry story is interesting as an Australian GHG fiddle. Basically vast areas of our savanna woodlands have thickening up by lack of a pre-European fire regime helped with some overgrazing so fires won’t carry. So more trees than grass over decades – really really thick in places. Bill Burrows (DPI scientist) documented the science of this. The size of the sink is 100s of megatonnes (on 500 Mt national inventory). So graziers wanted it counted. But AGO just early on didn’t want to know apparently. Then when it was counted internationally – they only counted “any change in rate of thickening” since 1990 which is a lot smaller. The thickening may well balance out the graziers rotational alnd clearing practices. But bizarrely the Qld govt banned tree clearing in Qld, Feds got the carbon windfall, graziers got nothing for their carbon (or their thickening), and Australia used more energy than ever in transport and energy sector. Then Feds crow they have made Kyoto targets anyway – reality is by a one-off on Qld farmers but “shhh” – let’s not confuse the public with details.
And it will be even funnier (bad joke) when farmers get the inevitable worse droughts and heatwaves to cope.
Feds position is prop up the big end of town at all costs. Argue, obfuscate and stall.
Sort of like with whales !
Hi Steve, Quick answer to your question:
1. I tend to agree with you and those american economists in that “… a market-based approach to capping and reducing such emissions. This type of strategy provides clear incentives for changes in business practices and the development of new technologies. It assures that economic forces are directed to keeping the cost of reducing emissions as low as they can be.” But this approach would have to included developed and developing countries – which Kyoto does not.
2. And everyone knows I am a great believer in technology, see my piece in the Courier: http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17783186%255E27197,00.html .
A. Phil says:
“Australian surface and global surface temps are up, ocean temps are up, Arctic melt, worldwide glacial melt on the majority of glaciers, power function of storms in all ocean basins doubled, species changing in timing of behaviour and mating worldwide”.
Cathy says:
All these factors, and many others, have varied continuously throughout climate history, and at rates and to magnitudes which greatly exceed the late 20th century phase of warming.
B. Phil says:
“Mechanisms – isn’t solar, orbital or volcanic”.
Cathy says:
On the contrary, it is all of the above, together with other factors which include cloudiness, greenhouse gases (natural and human), albedo changes, oceanographic changes, understood climate oscillations (ENSO, PDO, NAO etc.) and, possibly most important of all, not-yet-understood climate forcing factors (like methane emission by plants!).
C. Phil says:
“GCM models reproduce last 100 hundred years temperature trends quite well, but you need to put solar + greenhouse + volcanic forcings to get it right as some forcings are important at different times in the century”.
Cathy says:
Distinguished Swedish oceanographer Gosta Wallin summarised the computer modelling charade well when he commented:
“Global Climate Models (GCMs) are nothing more than interesting toys to play with. In no other “science” would it be possible to use predictions (from GCMs) with no prediction value, call them scenarios, which is only guess work, and be serious about it.”
And Phil, how can these models possible have got it right when they do not allow for the large amounts of methane (a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, as you know) being produced by plants?
D. Phil says:
“Biospheric feedbacks story will make more greenhouse forcing not less.”
Cathy says:
I have no idea what this means.
E. Phil says:
“Satellites and radiosondes agree with surface measurements”.
Cathy says:
This is not actually true, but so what if it were?
No scientist that I know doubts that a moderate warming has probably occurred over the last 25 years. What is in dispute, and huge doubt, is the degree to which that warming may or may not have been caused by human activity.
(Though the three measurements Phil refers to “see” the same qualitative annual and multi-annual cyclicity for their period of overlap, the long term warming trends vary between them by a factor of almost 100%, viz. between about 0.1C to 0.2C/decade.)
F. Phil says:
“And 2005 level with 1998 and not an EL Nino year”
Cathy says (again):
So what?
The temperature in 1998 or 2005 is still: (i) about the same or slightly less than in the preceding three, ~1000-year spaced, known climatic warmings (the Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan warm periods), (ii) 1-2C less than during the early Holocene, ~8-10 thousand years ago, and (iii) as much as 5C less than the warming recorded in the Vostok ice core during interglacial 9, about 400 thousand years ago.
Just what is the big deal here?
We need far less GW hysteria and far greater attention to the known facts of climate history. A little humility in our attempts to understand one of the most complex natural systems around (weather and climate) wouldn’t go amiss either.
The Australian got it right again: “maybe it is time most climatologists took a bath”. Phil and Ender, I think that includes you.
Cathy
Steve –
From the DFAT website.
“Australia has allocated $1.8 billion as part of a comprehensive domestic action programme, managed by the Australian Greenhouse Office, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Australia remains firmly committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels by 2008-12. Australia is on track to meet this target.”
If this is true, how can it be said that Australia is trying to “scuttle” Kyoto.
Surely this can be called a voluntary arrangement (though not from me, I wish that my share of the tax dollars were not going to this type of expenditure).
If Australia had ratified Kyoto, I presume that under carbon trading, Australia would be able to buy emission rights from, say Russia, to make up any short fall in emission reduction. This would, presumably be in addition to the $1.8 billion. Pretty soon this could add up to serious money!
Cathy – you have no clue. see >> for comments
A. Phil says:
“Australian surface and global surface temps are up, ocean temps are up, Arctic melt, worldwide glacial melt on the majority of glaciers, power function of storms in all ocean basins doubled, species changing in timing of behaviour and mating worldwide”.
Cathy says:
All these factors, and many others, have varied continuously throughout climate history, and at rates and to magnitudes which greatly exceed the late 20th century phase of warming.
>> no ! this rate of warming is exceptional and sudden, there are previous reasons why climate has varied (forcings) – these don’t apply here.
B. Phil says:
“Mechanisms – isn’t solar, orbital or volcanic”.
Cathy says:
On the contrary, it is all of the above, together with other factors which include cloudiness, greenhouse gases (natural and human), albedo changes, oceanographic changes, understood climate oscillations (ENSO, PDO, NAO etc.) and, possibly most important of all, not-yet-understood climate forcing factors (like methane emission by plants!).
>>> all of the above – nope … some factors listed will make it worse not better. But was 2005 due to El Nino – nope !
C. Phil says:
“GCM models reproduce last 100 hundred years temperature trends quite well, but you need to put solar + greenhouse + volcanic forcings to get it right as some forcings are important at different times in the century”.
Cathy says:
Distinguished Swedish oceanographer Gosta Wallin summarised the computer modelling charade well when he commented:
“Global Climate Models (GCMs) are nothing more than interesting toys to play with. In no other “science” would it be possible to use predictions (from GCMs) with no prediction value, call them scenarios, which is only guess work, and be serious about it.”
>>> who’s this dude – stupid game – he’s an ignorant non-practitioner – I can give a massive list back the other way.
And Phil, how can these models possible have got it right when they do not allow for the large amounts of methane (a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, as you know) being produced by plants?
>>> ummm gee – that’s hard one – because it used the actual atmospheric levels of GHGs and forcing apportionment (HELLO!)
D. Phil says:
“Biospheric feedbacks story will make more greenhouse forcing not less.”
>>> melting tundra, permafrost, Siberian swamps, now methane from trees
Cathy says:
I have no idea what this means.
E. Phil says:
“Satellites and radiosondes agree with surface measurements”.
Cathy says:
This is not actually true, but so what if it were?
>>> where were you last year – read real climate and the science papers listed
No scientist that I know doubts that a moderate warming has probably occurred over the last 25 years. What is in dispute, and huge doubt, is the degree to which that warming may or may not have been caused by human activity.
(Though the three measurements Phil refers to “see” the same qualitative annual and multi-annual cyclicity for their period of overlap, the long term warming trends vary between them by a factor of almost 100%, viz. between about 0.1C to 0.2C/decade.)
F. Phil says:
“And 2005 level with 1998 and not an EL Nino year”
Cathy says (again):
So what?
>>>> El Nino years are warmer, 1998 was a biggie, for 2005 to match 1998 is like “wow!”
The temperature in 1998 or 2005 is still: (i) about the same or slightly less than in the preceding three, ~1000-year spaced, known climatic warmings (the Mediaeval, Roman and Minoan warm periods), (ii) 1-2C less than during the early Holocene, ~8-10 thousand years ago, and (iii) as much as 5C less than the warming recorded in the Vostok ice core during interglacial 9, about 400 thousand years ago.
Just what is the big deal here?
>>> coz there were good reasons why climate did what it did then. Those temps aren’t necessarily agreed with – been reading some contrai=raina press I suspect.And we didn’t have 6 billion humans at risk somehwere every time the climate hiccuped in the past
We need far less GW hysteria and far greater attention to the known facts of climate history. A little humility in our attempts to understand one of the most complex natural systems around (weather and climate) wouldn’t go amiss either.
The Australian got it right again: “maybe it is time most climatologists took a bath”. Phil and Ender, I think that includes you.
>>> Cathy – you utterly clueless as your usual quotes on this blog attest (Ender why do we bother ??) Frankly I’m gob-stopped by the level of ignorance.
>>> so Cathy – what’s your hypothesis of why we are enjoying a rapid increase in global temperature then?
I give in.
You’ve convinced me that further discussion is pointless.
Cathy
Now don’t be like that – you were rude first.
Paul – “Australia remains firmly committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 levels by 2008-12. Australia is on track to meet this target.””
And it can only do this because it has included stopping land clearing as part of it targets while real emissions increased 30%.
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/government/kyoto/australia.html
http://www.tai.org.au/MediaReleases_Files/MediaReleases/MRLandclearing130100.htm
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17325/story.htm
I wonder what the $1.8 billion was spent on then?
Cathy – I agree.
Happy to tell you what it was spent on, though you could find out by looking at AGO programs since its inception (also the money has been spent yet, its been committed to be spent, over the period from 1997 to about 2012:
* rebate programs for solar electric power and solar cities
* renewable energy for remote regions
*emissions monitoring
* understanding (read as tweaking) land use change and forestry emissions
* efficient appliances programs
* encouragement money for businesses to become energy efficient
* greenhouse gas abatement program (money to make coal, gas, and big users of electricity more efficient)
* renewable energy commercialisation fund (money to demonstrate big, glossy, low greenhouse reduction new technology projects)
* funding for geosequestration (about $500 million)
* funding to forecast wind better to improve inclusion of wind energy in the grid
* funding for energy storage technologies
* admin of all these programs
there’s more, but you get the picture. wouldn’t it have been better to just do emissions trading and let the market sort it out?
Australia is scuttling kyoto because
a) it argued long and hard for concessions, these being
– a lighter target (easy to meet!)
– the inclusion of tree planting and land use change emissions (even easier to meet our target!)
b) it isn’t ratifying – this sends a message to businesses that we may or may not be interested in abating greenhouse emissions, and for an indeterminate amount of time. That creates uncertainty for investors. its bad.
also, if we bought rights off another country, that would be because they could reduce emissions more cheaply than we could. if it was the other way round, they would buy off us. either way, the most economically efficient reductions occur. And if we’d started emissions trading back in 1997, perhaps we wouldn’t have needed to commit to possibly spending $1.8 billion over 15 years.
Cathy you will never get one over Phil Done, he follows a bouncing ball.
Steve – Yes, I agree the money probably hasn’t been well spent.
Rog prefers 4 x 2 himself.
rog – actually he posts accurate scientific data which is very hard to refute with the pseudo science that you and Louis peddle.
Rog – can’t argue right now – practising marching up and down the square for Ian.
Roger,
I guess it depends upon what you mean by “get one over”.
If you read the last post I made before I withdrew from the discussion, you will find an accurate list of objections to, and errors identified in, the arguments put by Ender and Phil.
The fact that in response all that they can do is shout louder, and make wilder and yet more incorrect statements, means that discussing this issue with them is futile. I observe that I am far from the first person on this blog to discover this.
All experienced teachers (which I am) can recognize when they come up against people who have such strong belief systems that they are basically uneducable (if there is such a word).
Indeed, it is the dominance of persons with closed minds and message-to-sell attitudes within the pro-AGW lobby that leads many balanced commentators to view the matter as one of religious belief rather than empirical science. And it was for that reason that the balanced Editorial in today’s Australian was so refreshing.
I know it’s old-fashioned but, as my earlier postings make clear, I prefer empirical science.
Cathy
Oooo – a teacher. (this is where you do the put-down – “that explains everything” 🙂 OK we won’t go there ).
Cathy – I started on this blog to balance the utter drivel that was being spoken about climate change science (not Kyoto).
In terms of being impossible to educate (safer phrasing perhaps) – I learn new things each day from many sources including here.
Typical reactions I experienced here in early days was be given the usual right wing abuse and labelling. So we therefore tend to become robust in our discussions.
If you want to have a polite discussion we can, but dare I suggest your post was somewhat abrasive. But who’s perfect – I was smiling when I responded as well as muttering “no no no – that’s not so”. And I was not being “me too” in my response to you – simply factual on what I know (which of course you can assert is incorrect). So when you say “more incorrect statements” I’m afraid I beg to differ.
I thought you guys enjoyed a bit of rhetorical biffo – Rog thrives on it. And he now googles like a cat on a hot tin roof. Very quick on the response – reckon he’s go the family multi-tasking myself.
BTW – how could you investigate climate change empirically besides wait !
Ender where is your evidence that *I peddle pseudoscience?*
ps I am still waiting for you show a cost effective and sustainable solar system that will provide a source of energy 24/7.
Cathy, Phil Done is a greenie troll. You dont feed trolls you just whack them with your slipper.
Greenie trolls muddy the waters by saying that views contrary to their fundamentlist orthodoxy are paid for by Big Business.
Greenie trolls are reluctant to reveal their own source of income.
If you want a good reaction mention the word “pension”
Phil agrees with me? You are absolved from self flaggelation for the next three days while I absent myself for a brief stint of tree destruction and dismemberment. I now realise that I have a hillside full of Whales, just waiting to be cut down in their prime. You seem to be a touch more agro since yuletide, Phil. You didn’t stray into any hydro by any chance?
He may be a greenie Rog, but he is no troll. His comments are a mix of great links, info and argument, and flaming and teasing – very similar to your own style.
You two seem to have this love-hate relationship going that i am finding even more enjoyable than “The Bold and the Beautiful” 🙂
Ian – well yes we sometimes agree or I am persuaded to your position – you’re not a complete tosser and I still listen (sometimes through grating teeth). Not haven’t had a bath Ian or my partner would sit next to me. (and Rog that would be an adult woman not a billygoat).
Cathy – as a hillbilly rightie troll, Rog likes to play dirty – so on Louis’s special blog set up for containment of Ender and myself (unused – as Ender and I normally come in the front door not servants’ entrance). He implied directly on that blog that Ender and I are layabouts in receipt of govt pensions/dole/whatever and the sort that hand around dodgy “leftie” cafes (I’ll add in black Gothic garb reading Satre and Camus). Not that it matters, but I have never been in receipt of govt pensions or benefit nor the dole nor do I frequent cafes for that matter. I dress badly but not in greenie attire nor gothically.
Rog of course enjoys relaxing on Tim Blair with his mates. He can be relied on cue to make assertions about any item on his guide to the right wing checklist – any matter on climate, kyoto, forestry, conservation, whales, left wing, greens, green organsation. He will defend the free market against the force of gravity. And like most right wings guys doesn’t like getting some of his rhetoric own back.
To be fair – his googling speeds and general knowledge have improved greatly – so as a teacher you would be interested to know that at least his world view has expanded greatly by being here.
He delights in spraying at research organisations where is totally ignorant of any facts or process. He nevers makes a phone call or email to them to check a position. And a big chip on the shoulder from rejecting any education at any early age.
We are led to believe that Rog has some sort of nursery or rural business in a semi-rural location and that he is suffering self-made man’s syndrome with advanced myopia. But he starting to formulate other views of the world giving a him a bad case of cognitive dissonance.
I see his anger management therapy is starting to become effective – 4 x 2 has now been replaced by a slipper. “oooo”
Rog – 8/10 for a gratuitous slag. Not bad.
In reality Rog and I are as bad as each other – both opinionated polarised bastards and know-it-alls – and if we came in contact there would be a flash of light and puff of smoke – and then nothing. (the only difference is that I’m right and he’s not – trust me on that – pinky promise).
As I said Cathy – if you wish to discuss matters seriously but less robustly we can.
rog – “Ender where is your evidence that *I peddle pseudoscience?*”
Sure – you are the mouthpiece for all sorts of cherry picking half truths that come from the skeptic side. MWP was warmer than today, water vapour is a forcing not a feedback and so on and on and on. If Phil is a greenie troll then you are a corporate right wing troll.
“ps I am still waiting for you show a cost effective and sustainable solar system that will provide a source of energy 24/7.”
Go to Albany and see the wind turbines or Esperance that derives most of its power from wind or anywhere else that it has been given a go. You show me a coal plant that can give power 24/7 that never needs maintenance or has an unlimited supply of fuel or is even needed 24/7. Most large coal plants sit idle consuming fuel at off peak times. My power at home is not 24/7 as everytime there is a pole top fire we lose power – thats not 24/7.
Solar = wind?
OK, so why are they building all these new gas fired power stations, with one in Esperance?
The wind farm provides, on average ~8% of Esperance’ power needs and is situated in what is regarded as the best wind farm site in Australia.
The need to build wind farms is in response to the Australian government legislation (The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000) which placed a legal liability on electricity retailers to proportionately contribute towards the generation of an additional 9500GWh of renewable energy per year by 2010.
http://www.westernpower.com.au/home/environment/renewable_energy/wind/renewable_wind_ten_mile.html
ps where is your evidence that *I peddle pseudoscience?*”
Opinion is not fact.
rog – the new gas fired power station is to replace the diesel one they had before. The wind turbines are small in relation to Esperances’s total demand that is why it is only 8%.
What do you think drives the wind?
So opinion is not fact eh – well that eliminates most of your ‘facts’.
Ender says *Esperance that derives most of its power from wind*
Ender says *The wind turbines are small in relation to Esperances’s total demand that is why it is only 8%*
Only in Enders’ World does opinion override fact.
rog – OK you got me on the “Esperance that derives most of its power from wind” I did think that the contribution was larger and did not check it first – sloppy. It would be if they would install more turbines.
Ender, what are your thoughts on the potential of wind power, if a subsidised wind farm in one of the best wind farm locations is only producing 8% of power needs? Obviously if they built more turbines it would be more than 8%. That’s not really saying anything.
Do you think they need to tax fossil fuels more to subsidise more wind farms?
A question on water vapour as a feedback, possibly a silly question. If it is postulated that increased temperature from CO2 causes evaporation of water, leading to further temperature rise from the “greenhouse” effect of water vapour, what limits the temperature rise? Does normal day/night, summer/winter temperature changes cause the same feedback?
Paul
On your climate question:
It’s worth reading the RC and Stoat posts on issue of forcing/feedback.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/water-vapour-is-not-
dominant.html
Next bit may be a tad of topic but anyway.
With evaporation we have to be careful – evaporation is a mixture of radiation, wind run, humidity (vapour pressure deficit more correctly) and temperature.
For example the annual evaporation rate at Alice Springs is a fair bit higher than Darwin. Darwin is hotter overall but Alice has low humidity and clearer skies in general (more radiation). This can be an initial surprise to many.
Recent droughts may have higher evaporative flux through clearer conditions, lower humidity and temperature. Wind ?? The whole area is an interesting ongoing research issue.
Phil Done
POSTED BY JENNIFER AS FOR SOME REASON THE ABOVE WAS EXCLUDED FOR QUESTIONABLE CONTENT WHEN PHIL TRIED TO POST … I’VE COME IN THROUGH THE BACK.
Paul – my thoughts are that the wind farm needs to be a lot bigger and does not have to be necessarily subsidised. A carbon tax to properly cost the emissions of the fossil fuel power industry that renewables would not have to pay would redress some of the balance.
We need to commit to renewables however I am now thinking that the rise of renewable power needs to go hand in hand with alternative transport to provide the needed storage.
If you are interested you can read some of my ideas at stevegloor.typepad.com I have a couple of recent posts on thoughts for the future.
Phil – Thanks for the reference, I’ll read it today, I hope. (Second link didn’t work).
Ender – I was wondering why such a good wind site is only producing 8% of a small town’s energy. Also what it would look like if wind power was producing say 20% of Australia’s energy needs. Would that be possible? How many turbines? Sited where? What infrastructure? Maybe some of these practicalities account for why wind power is not more widespread.
Phil – Nothing in either link about what limits temperature rise, or why relative humidity isn’t at 100% constantly. Maybe it is obvious to others, and so not explained in the links.
Do you think the author of the mustelid link is influenced by his former membership of the UK Green party? Why should he have any credibility, given the Green’s policy of reducing fossil fuel use, and the AGW hypothesis that fossil fuel use is causing AGW? Anything he says in defence of AGW is likely to be tainted.
Paul it was sort of in Stoat’s but anyway it’s like this – water deson’t have a high residence time like CO2:
Water vapor in the troposphere, unlike the better-known greenhouse gases such as CO2, is essentially passive in terms of climate: the residence time for water vapor in the atmosphere is short (about a week) so perturbations to water vapor rapidly re-equilibriate. In contrast, the lifetimes of CO2, methane, etc, are long (hundreds of years) and hence perturbations remain. Thus, in response to a temperature perturbation caused by enhanced CO2, water vapor would increase, resulting in a (limited) positive feedback and higher temperatures. In response to a perturbation from enhanced water vapor, the atmosphere would re-equilibriate due to clouds causing reflective cooling and water-removing rain.
So you don’t get a runaway greenhouse effect.
Thanks for that, Phil.
Paul – renewables need storage. I am coming to the idea that electric transport (electric cars and plug in hybrids) are an essential part of a renewable solution. Cars represent an enormous potential storage as modern AC electric drives can generate 240V electricity from their batteries. I calculated that 7 million electric cars could run all Australia demand for 2 hours.
Wind alone will not be enough. A total distributed renewable system will be household PV, large solar thermal and wind power.