I can’t image anyone complaining about having carbon dioxide stored under their house, but in an article entitled ‘Carbon storage won’t be optional’ Matthew Warren, writing for The Australian, begins with the emotive statement that:
“Australian may be stripped of their right to block the storage of greenhouse gases beneath their land under laws being considered by the state and federal governments.
“The capture of millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from power stations and their storage in giant underground reservoirs, a process known as geosequestration, have been backed by the Howard Government and Labor as major steps in helping Australia and other nations to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Experts claim the technology could be commercially viable in Australia by 2015.
“A geosequestration law expert has warned that if proven viable, the new technology will need new laws based on oil and gas exploration and extraction that override landowners’ rights to veto storage underneath their properties.”
Read the complete article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21530480-2702,00.html
I’d be happy to have the carbon dioxide stored under my place and I’ld be happy if they build a nuclear power plant in the neighbourhood and I’m hanging-out to drink recycled water.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Trees are the answer”
This was Patrick Moore’s solution. It was also advocated by the Forest Industry throughout Australia and by communities that depend on a sustainable timber industry. Grow more trees, sequester more carbon, let the social and economic benefits of trees and timber products save the world was the cry, only to condemned by those that call themselves conservationists.
Now the Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, is saying it. His article in the Australian on 9 April (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-onceonly-chance-to-repair-damage/2007/04/08/1175970936472.html) makes it very clear that growing trees and sustainable forestry is the answer.
Oops, Tim Flannery’s article is in the Age. However both are high quality newspapers made of woodchips that are recycled to help make tomorrow’s newspapers.
Patrick Moore left the green movement and belongs to the GW sceptics now, or? He is still very pro developmet of course!!!
There is only one greenhouse gas worthy of attention – water vapour. The rest are irrelevant except in illconceived climate models. This is how we are able to recognise the idiots amongg us – by their support for far-fetched, global climate models.
Jen – I’m Ok with the nuke in the neighborhood and the recycled water.
They’re proven , safe , useable technologies.
But how close to solving the geosequestration challenges are we?
Ian made the point some time ago that harvesting and using ( not burning ) timber removed and stored CO2 from the atmosphere.
I read somewhere that young , growing trees absorbed more carbon than the older ones so again we may have a useable , viable solution in front of us – start bulding with timber again and get those plantations started!
Jim: There are doubts re albedo now about the overall benefits of more forests in the cooler zones. Covering our large expanse of bare earth could be another problem.
In some of my past posts I have referred to “clag”. IMO Forests without clag in our more southern latitudes have virtually no reflection.
Low cloud cover was never much of a feature round these parts but fog sure was. Studies of land cover past, present and future need to look deeper into just what besides bushfires goes naturally with a hotter dryer climate.
Luke will bounce back with info on frosts and their duration re max min records and so on but I bet all farmers including fruit producers are far from assured and that’s more about double whammies that keep piling up.
Jim,
There is no doubt that growing forests and their subsequent harvest for timber products assist in removing GHG from the atmosphere.
In the publication Forests, Wood & Carbon Balance the CRC for Greenhouse Accounting and the Forest and Wood Products Research and Development Corporation state that for 2004, a net 14.9 million tonnes of carbon was removed from the atmosphere though Australia’s sustainable forestry management. This publication details carbon stored in growing forests as well as timber products currently in service and in land fill.
See http://www.fwprdc.org.au/menu.asp?id=10&lstReports=18
Lots of Caldeira’s work floating around the net after the latest PNAS issue.
Example of issue here:
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0409-forests.html
Basically temperate forests have darker albedo and may not be that good as climate change mitigators on balance – sink carbon yes but attract more heat. Although Caldeira points out there are other values besides carbon sequestration. What complexity – I know keeping multiple objectives in mind is hard for this blinkered uni-dimensional blog.
Best forests seem to be equatorial rainforests which sink carbon AND produce clouds.
So Tasmanian forestry is adding to global warming. Tsk tsk.
The really big gains in carbon sequestration will not come from planting trees but, rather, from better management of our existing native forests.
We have 157 million hectares of forest and woodland and very little of it is untouched, or, in the terms of the ignoroids, “old growth”.
We have at least 30 million hectares of forest in the same regions where the national target for plantation establishment (3m ha) will be met.
Almost all of the 157mha is in various stages of regrowth. And unless it is regularly thinned it will reach a point where competition between stems reduces the growth rate to near zero and any growth is offset by decay of uncompetetive trees and increased susceptibility to disease.
Large tracts of this resource has already reached this condition which is why the national greenhouse accounts record such a low rate of carbon absorption by our native forests. They mimic the carbon balance of old growth forest where large trees grow on the outside but rot away in the middle to produce zero net absorption.
And what have our visionary leaders done about it? Well, we don’t even have a long term use for Brigalow regrowth. The Qld government accepts that all regrowth on land that was non-forest in 1990 can be continually re-cleared in future. But the dopey boofheads too even allow for the export of woodchips from this entirely lawful, and necessary clearing.
Bill Burrow’s extensive plot data found that even the least productive open woodland was thickenning by about 1m3/ha each year, without any form of management facilitation. And that means that the very minimum contribution from this sector is in the order of 160mt of wood, or 80mt of carbon, or 300 million tonnes of absorbed CO2 each year.
The wetter coastal forests can add 12t/ha without management facilitation and much more with fertiliser (ie potash from burned biomass). It would only need 10 million ha of this forest type, growing at 12t/ha/year and the total national forest growth would hit 270mt of wood, 135mt of carbon or 495mt of absorbed CO2.
And every Australian would be greenhouse neutral.
But to maintain that rate of absorption we will need to find a market and long term storage option (like house frames, newsprint in landfill, etc) for an annual harvest of that much wood.
That is the widely misunderstood essence of the term “sustainable yield”. If we reduce the amount of wood we take from a forest we also reduce the subsequent capacity of that forest to re-absorb more carbon.
But here is the really interesting bit. By harvesting the weaker trees and the senescent ones, and converting them into stable, long-term carbon products, before the trees start to decay, we postpone an equal volume of “natural” carbon emissions.
With sensible forest management and supply chain emission accounting, Australian’s could shift from being 27t/capita CO2 emitters to 30t+/capita CO2 absorbers.
For more on this issue see the Landholders Institute submission on Carbon Trading at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/
Tasmanian forestry is not adding to global warming, Luke. Tasmania’s forests are mostly native forests which have always had much the same albedo. The improved management of existing forests will increase carbon absorption with no impact on albedo. Only the planting of new trees on previously cleared land, or new regrowth on same, will alter heat balances.
A fact you know perfectly well but chose, instead, to make a misleading political statement to please your green masters.
Luke and Gavin,
Eucalyptus regnans (Mountain Ash to Victorians and Swamp Gum to Tasmanains)forests produce more biomass per hectare per annum than any other forest type on earth, including tropical rainforests. So as biological carbon sinks and reservoirs they are quite possibly natures best.
As for Tasmanian forestry adding to global warming what utter rubbish. Like production forests anywhere in the world the gross management unit is the estate not the individual tree. Therefore if you want to calculate the greenhouse impact of forestry activities you must look at the estate level accounting as forestry is about growing forests. Sure some trees are harvested annually but it is the growing of the forest estate that foresters are concerned with and there is more forest growing annually in those forests than what is harvested, both on a per hectare basis and on a biomass volume basis.
As for the albedo effect, many of the worlds forests have been deforested for agricultural purposes or for the development of the cities and towns that we live in since the start of the industrial revolution (late 1700’s but I’ll use 1850 for the sake of this argument). In that period world population has grown from 1.2 billion in 1850 to approx 6.6 billion today. That equates to a significant amount of deforestation for the purpose of providing human habitat. I would expect that those deforested areas had a much darker albedo in 1850 than they do today under changed land uses. Clearly temperate and tropical forests have always transpired and always emitted water vapour into the atmosphere. I wonder how the gcm’s handle the changing albedo and water vapour emissions over that period or do they assume no change.
Then check this out:
http://www.junkscience.com/PNAS_Deforestation_4-9-07.pdf
Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects
of large-scale deforestation
Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, Edited by Peter Vitousek, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, and approved February 24, 2007 (received for review October 11, 2006).
“We find that global-scale deforestation has a net cooling influence on Earth’s climate, because the warming carbon-cycle effects of deforestation are overwhelmed by the net cooling associated with changes in albedo and evapotranspiration.”
…so you want to buy trees to save the planet from catastrophic AGW?
Think again. Soon, the greenpeacers will demand a punitive tax on tree-owners.
Ian: In future “sustainable yield” in all forestry must be wrapped up in “emissions” calculated across a range of topography in peer reviewed science that includes extraction activity and other issues like species diversity.
Peter chimes in (thanks again) with the familiar story on mountain ash, great stuff but it wont do so well in either Sid’s or Ian’s areas.
Not a word about blue gums or radiata though. As they have a natural habit of inhibiting everything else from the subterranean rocks upwards, let’s have some recent science on the long term performance with both of these in another thread.
When concepts for managing native forests are preceded by the distraction with “yields” I smell a familiar odour and it’s not all H2S.
Water for me has always been a major consideration and from experience I have learned not to trust the singular input from any primary industry. Apart from the obvious questions about sources and storage reserves with liquid H2O there is a great deal to find out yet along the vapour trail.
Monitoring local climates in the production chain used to be a big part in most of my jobs.
Schiller, What happened to Tasmania in your referenced deforestation piece? Any one who leaves Tasmania off the map just has no sense of the importance of Australia’s island State.
Despite two decades of forest controversy and claims by self titled conservationists that all the Tasmanian forests are destroyed by export wood chipping a study of Tasmanian emissions for 2004 revealed a total reduction of 25%from the Kyoto base year.
The AGO 2004 Inventory provides information on the Base Year (1990) when the Tasmanian total was 14.3Mt including 6.7Mt from Land use Change (deforestation) and 0.0 from afforestation and reforestation (due to accounting rules). In 2004 the comparable figures were Land Use Change 5.1Mt and forestry -1.9 Mt. (Combined total 3.2 Mt)
These changes in land use may also change how Tasmania reflects or absorbs the Sun’s rays, but to be left off the map shows just how inaccurate computer modelling of this effect may be!
Holy cow – Ian’s now arguing for the historical pre-1990 position and anti-albedo. And Schiller is going against Ian on the albedo story – careful Schiller you’ll be upped for the rent.
Clear fell Tassy and cool the planet. Ban the Tasmanian forest industry. No more replanting. No more burning after clearing. Black is bad for albedo.
And woodland thickening – more albedo warming – bad stuff. We should be heat taxed – probably explains the regional temperature rises too.
I’m writing Bob Brown on these issues right now.
Luke: The locals should have picked up on this “Planting trees can backfire” via the ABC. We just had a comment on 666 during the math “Teasers”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2007/1893163.htm
But since the TCA, IPA etc have their “in house” solutions to carbon we can bet they all miss the best of our ABC.
Gavin,
Gavin I have not once suggested the establishment of E.regnans beyond its range. It was provided as an example that tropical forests are NOT the be all and end all when it comes to their ability to rapidly produce biomass. As some commentators are suggesting. Essentially its horses for courses when it comes to forests.
As for Blue Gums and Radiata. Nothing wrong with them either. Both have the capacity to produce large volumes of biomass and to annually sequester high tonnages of CO2.
With carbon fertilisation they are, and will become more so, efficient water users. They are grown as comodity crops and therefore have a greater capacity to sequester and store carbon than an eqivalent area of native forest.
As for your argument about water, lets face it not now nor inthe forceable future are we going to see the level of reforestation or afforestation that is required to bring abouot a return to what could be termed the pre european hydrological cycle.
The funds do just not exist to do so at the scale required. Any afforestation or reforestation that has occurred as a result of recent plantation establishment is insufficient in scale, both temporally and spatially, to ammeliorate the changes to the “natural” hydrological cycle, that has occurred in this country, as a result of land clearing for agriculture, urban settlement and mining.
I assume Gavin’s ABC story is actually based on the paper “Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation” available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0608998104v1
and reported in the News Corp network http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21531408-1702,00.html
Whilst I am not a subscriber to PNAS I am assuming the computer model including the reflective qualities of snow in the Northern latitudes. In regard to temperature rises and CO2 concentration we now have computer models based on computer modelling.
According to News.com “However, the authors did not endorse deforestation of the boreal forests as a measure against global warming.”
But that is what Luke appears to conclude from listening to Gavin’s radio.
Cinders: I guess Luke “Clear fell Tassy and cool the planet” is all smiles too now without out our ABC (folks it’s a little leg pulling going on downunder ) Some see precious hardwood logs in various ways.
Peter: I always saw forests as a wick to clouds and Tasmanian forests as rather special in that process. This is about balance between groundwater and rainfall in high rainfall areas. Rapid CO2 conversion requires a nutrient stream in addition to sunlight.
I won’t attempt to link the complex chemistry in photosynthesis and evaporation, but we can start here –
n CO2 + 2n H2O + ATP + NADPH → (CH2O)n + n H2O + n O2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis
Gavin,
If it is about groundwater then I would suggest the best staarting point is to lobby our politicians very hard indeed to ensure that sufficient funds are availabel for research into groundwater and other aspects of the hydological cycle. It is of limited use studying groundwater alone as it is only one small part of the cycle.
I would suggest that a great eal of investment be put into what happens to the water after it is transpired by trees. It woud have to be the least known element of the hydrological cycle.
As usual most hydrological engineers have ignored that aspect. Too hard to study so it is dismissed. As a result we now have the circumstance where very little is known about the relationships between cloud formation, rainfall and evapotranspiration from our forests. Clearly the meteorologists have done little work in this area even though it is essential in understanding global, regional and local weather patterns.
Peter: I agree totally with your last post but if the southern states have a big role in sinking carbon long term via increased ground cover then we should look at how it’s done as AGW impacts.
Pulp mills etc must be scaled accordingly.
As usual, Luke does a bit of the old soft shoe shuffle, tosses out a few one liners but merely wastes the audiences time as they wait for the main act. And Gavin has a nasal moment, picking his nose every time someone includes the term “yield” in forest management. Yawn, I’m going back to the farm.
Ian – you’ve obviously recanted all on albedo. Mr Sunshine Sunglasses – “oh the glare” – has done a big flip flop.
You guys are so typical on socialising the losses eh?
And your bit of fluff indicates you’re out of intellectual ammo too. Redneck.
No Luke, I have not recanted on albedo. I was simply pointing out that improving existing native forest management would produce a major improvement in carbon balance with minimal impact on albedo. How is that inconsistent with my earlier statements on albedo?
I note that the research assumes that the lower transpiration from deforestation, producing increased runoff, is not subsequently captured by irrigation downstream.
Most clearing related increases in water yield are subsequently captured, in the Murray-Darling in particular, and the subsequent delivery to crops and pasture will increase transpiration and reduce albedo. And this will partially offset the changes caused by the forest clearing upstream.
So now that we have IPCC sanctioned peer reviewed research recognising clearing induced increases in catchment water yield, when can we expect the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to start producing proper accounting of all yield fluxes?
And given that we now have research recognising the capacity of non-carbon factors to, completely, offset the warming effect of CO2, when can we expect national greenhouse accounting to move on from it’s narrow carbon fetish and initiate proper heat balance accounting that is capable of actually measuring outcomes rather than mere implied inputs?
Is that enough “ammo” for you, Boy Wonder?
What “IPCC sanctioned peer reviewed research ” was that?
Really current forest management is doing very little on the overall accounts if it’s part of the background business. But meanwhile global energy and demand soars.
ON MDBC – has anyone actually asked them? Do we really know.
And on Greenhouse Accounting – hate to say but yep agree. (Drat!).
So if trees are re-established in the upper latitudes of the northern hemisphere then it may result in a reduced albedo. Given the current species distribution across the upper latitudes of the northern hemsphere, I would envisage that the proedominent species planted or regenerated would be conifers.
If conifers were used for reforestation or afforestation then the albedo for that area would be reduced as a percentage. However, in the winter months the albedo would again rise, though perhaps not as much as for flat snow covered ground. This is perceived to be a bad thing for global warming and as pointed out in this blog a recent paper has questioned the value of reestablishing trees into the landscape at the higher latitudes.
The other side of this coin is that if warmer temperatures do persist in the higher latitudes then the growing season will increase and the capacity to sequester greater amounts of CO2 will also increase. For instance the growing season in the arctic circle (approx 66 degrees, 30 minutes) for norway spruce is approx 90 days. Further south say in siberia (approx 60 degrees) it increases to 120 days. This is a significant difference and one that needs to be considered when determining the impacts of a changing albedo.
Now lets just hold on a moment, folks. The only serious albedo in the Arctic or near Arctic is mid-summer albedo. And it is my understanding that snow melts to expose a landscape of lichens etc for many hundreds of Km north of the tree line. The albedo of exposed lichens is not going to be substantially different to that of a forest.
It should also be remembered that snow also falls on pine forests but even if it did not, the contrast between snow and non-snow is essentially a winter event.
And in winter at the Arctic circle the sun is only barely over the horizon (that is, after all, what defines the Arctic circle in the first place). So the fact that snow might reflect 85% of solar energy and a pine forest may only reflect 20% means very little when the angle of incidence of that solar energy is so low that the actual wattage/m2 is next to zero.
The Climate Cretins have tried to imply that the percentage change in albedo from melting snow is significant in climatic terms. But albedo is nothing more than the reflected percentage of whatever solar heat is actually present. If the actual insolation is minimal then albedo is little more than three fifths of sweet FA.
In mid-summer, when Arctic sunshine is highest, much of the snow has melted anyway so the key elements are the difference between the albedo of lichens and the albedo of trees. And that, folks, is not much at all.
Once again, the Climate Cretins have invented a new scare story, conveniently located well away from the places where most of the public will be sufficiently familiar enough to spot the scam.
The real driver of planetary climate is insolation and albedo in the topics. And that is also where most of the water vapour and clouds are found. And if the clouds are already doing a better job of reflecting solar radiation and holding in heat then an increase in CO2 below those clouds will have minimal impact.
The enhanced CO2 effect really only takes place in locations, and at times, when/where clouds and water vapour are not present.
Gee Ian – I bet that the climate modellers knew none of this. Jeez you’re sure smart.
And gee I bet they missed the cloud and tropics link too. Golly fancy not thinking about that. Gosh you’re sure clever.
One day you try to read the paper first before talking crap.
I would happily have a nuclear power station near me, and I’d drink recycled water.
Having CO2 stored under my house, though? Not sure about that. CO2 is very dangerous. It’s heavier than air, and displaces the oxygen we need to survive. Any accidental release of CO2 stored underground could kill a huge number of people. It’s happened before as a result of natural phenomena.
Sylvia
How refreshing, Luke responds with sarcasm. The climate modellers may well have known about it, Luke, but the emissaries of scumbagia have been quite content to allow a misinformed public to form their views on climate risk without knowing about it.
And as for the MDBC and misreported water yield, just take a look at any MDBC supplied data on water flows and you will see no portion allocated to increased yield from land clearing. The current gross inflow is all assumed to be the same as the original “natural” flow.
This is despite the fact that increased yield from clearing was absolutely fundamental to the whole salinity scare. Ditto for the National Land and Water Audit. So don’t try and tell us they are “all honourable men” who are just misunderstood.
“emissaries of scumbagia ” – I kacked myself. Classic.
It’s worth winding you up to get these gems out of you. We’re now writing a book “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Redneck Dialectic”.
As for MDB, land clearing and dams etc etc. Remember to calculate the clearing only from the date of dam commissioning/dam fill. No tricky dickies by going to pre-European or we’ll have to do ya.
As for AGO, Audits and all things Fed (not climate) – yep – get up’em. Be my guest.
But back to “Risk” which Bazza would remind us is the BIGGIE issue in all this.
So if it turns out that Schiller and his North American mates by their God-fearing ways inherit the climate benefit (do the CIA know this already ?? -goes back to Whitlam you know) and we end up in perpetual drought from semi-permanent EL Nino plus a polar vortex rammed on full speed ahead and Jen toasting her marshmallows on the open hearth of a fast breeder nuclear reactor – do we get to sue you contrarian dudes into the stone age for selling us this pup??
Or do we just become the 51st state and get Walmart? Imagine having Shillsy for a cousin?
What’s the risk in all this?? Those out there farming (even Sid subliminally) are doing the calculations in their heads right now.
Ask Bazza !?
“I can’t image anyone complaining about having carbon dioxide stored under their house..”
Imagine it Jennifer.
I’d be utterly appalled. That costs were being imposed on myself and/or the taxpayer.
And that MOTHER NATURE was being willfully deprived of CO2.
And that people were needlessly going hungry because of the truncated CO2 in the atmosphere.
Its a disgrace is what it is.
And we must stop this movement and shame its leaders.
Yea let’s shame Motty for storing carbon under his house. ROTFL.
There surely is few things more stupid then the idea that we ought spend millions of dollars sequestering CO2 underground.
Can any of you goose-stepping zombies snap out of it for one second and give me some sort of a sane reason why we would spend EVEN $1 doing such a thing?
You don’t have a justification to spend even $1 on this madness.
CO2 is good for the environment. So even the lefts claims to be champions for nature are insincere.
How do zombies goose-step? Requires too much motor-function.
But I guess Graeme’s motor-function is severely inhibited so maybe it doesn’t matter.
Just to emphasise my point about the dangers of CO2 release, here’s a link to an article about a disaster in Cameroon where 1,700 people were killed by CO2 released from a lake.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/21/newsid_3380000/3380803.stm
Well still no evidence Luke. Well what a surprise that the evidence-filibusterer and total idiot fraud leftist Luke still had no evidence.
SYLVIA makes a good point. Not only is geosequestration of CO2 a totally idiotic thing to do right from the getgo, denying the natural world the extra robustness it gets from enhanced CO2 (this is just a FACT people. Get used to it and stop lying about it) but as Sylvia points out CO2 sequestration sets up a dangerous hazard that could instantly kill many people if something went wrong.
Can anybody think of a single reason you would sequester CO2?I mean what could be more moronic then that?
Crazy behaviour. And for no reason at all.
Can you imagine that? That Rudd would spend half a billion dollars of stolen money on this. FOR NO REASON AT ALL?
This is madness. When you guys find a reason why you would act in this idiotic fashion do let us know.
“No Luke, I have not recanted on albedo. I was simply pointing out that improving existing native forest management would produce a major improvement in carbon balance with minimal impact on albedo. How is that inconsistent with my earlier statements on albedo?”
What on earth are you worrying about albedo for in the first place? You are allowing yourself to get caught up in the middle of the fraud argument and bogged down in the dirt with Luke when the stupid liar doesn’t have any evidence for you to work with in the first place.
Supposing we were due to go into a little-ice-age or at least some cooling. Which of course we are. What harm would a tiny bit of reduced albedo do in the first place?
Its as if we are in a fear and trembling of having slightly less disastrous winters for the Laplanders.
Force Luke to give you the evidence that there is some sort of problem in the first place. Don’t get bogged down in this silliness of worrying that something good might happen. Because if there is reduced albedo in the far north thats a very good thing indeed.
To keep things on track and to stop yourself from getting bogged down you must remember PRECISELY what it is we want from these Malaria-holocaust-deniers and energy-deprivation-fascists.
We want evidence for:
1. The likelihood of catastrophic warming.
2. For the proposition that a little bit of human-induced warming is a BAD thing in a brutal and pulverising ice age.
If the people involved in this mass-murder-via-energy-deprivation-attempt cannot come up with any evidence for the above two propositions then, for any one of them who fails to come up with that evidence, that person is engaged in a fraud.
Simple as that.
And we’ve got to find out who that leftist is, and severe him from the public tit. Because we will find that most of the fraudsters draw money from blood-sucker-central.
No-one has the right to a blood-sucker job in the first place. And the contempt behind this fraud is coming from the unnecessarily socialised sector.
People.
There is just no substitute for mass-sackings of public-sector-vampires when you have an institutional problem of this sort.
Seriously. Can anyone think of a reason why would sequester CO2?
It would cost money and it would set up a hazard as Sylvia points out.
Really, Looney-bird disbelievers like you should be jailed for not believing. When Rudd get elected we’re going to round up people like you up and put you in concentration camps – and your family and friends too. Frankly carrying on like you are violates the national terrorism laws. I reckon you’re close to sedition and treason myself. I think we need a war crimes tribunal to try you all too.
Next we’re going to ban the coal industry, stop cars, introduce a carbon tax, and give everyone a wind-mill. That will fix the CO2 problem.
I’m personally going to recommend that we install the United Nations as a world government to regulate global CO2 use.
That will wipe the smile off your face.
No seriously Luke.
Can you think of any reason at all that we would spend even $1 on carbon sequestration?
1. Why deny nature the extra robustness that CO2 brings.
2. Why deny us the cheaper food and less water requirements.
3. Why set up a health hazard. Risking a local catastrophe if the stored carbon is suddenly released?
4. Why impose billions of dollare in costs on everyone.
There must be some reason for this. Surely Luke. A taxeater like you would know what the reason was.
By the way.
Threaten me again you wimp and I’ll personally strangle you and pummel you to death.
Well seriously numb nuts
CO2 isn’t magic stuff. Lack of water = no benefit. And the FACE experiments – have shown little improvement in field situations. And all that extra CO2 has done zip for the Australian drought!?
The biggest issue facing much of the world is water supply. Climate variability already plays havoc with water supply. Look at the last 20 years in Australia for example.
The CO2 under the house debate here is stupid. Any decent geosequestration will be done miles from anywhere.
The CO2 physics is well understood, we have empircal observations of the effect in radiation terms on the ground and from space. We have most glaciers responding world wide, changes in hurricane/cyclone peak strength in all ocean basins, a warming troposphere, a cooling stratosphere, species changing distributions, changes in poikilotherm phenology worldwide, changes in mating behaviour.
There is no change in solar output to effect such a warming and the CO2 theory is backed up by thousands of global observation, modelling and model validation.
It’s an open an shut case.
If we continue to emit as we are we will change the tails of the extreme weather distributions – drought, flood, heatwaves, storms. Sea level not that urgent.
Climate variability already costs the world billions – you want some more ? Don’t think that humanity already copes with climate – we don’t.
And the suggestion that it will cost billions to fix is a very nihlistic view put about by those with no imagination. It’s actually an economic opportunity if we get our finger out.
In any case – you’ve missed the boat and have been out-voted – even Bush and Howard have moved. Events are now set in motion.
But still plenty of opportunity to stuff the details. It’s called politics !
See Graeme – now that’s why you need to be locked up. You’re a very dangerous person. How long have you had anger problems Graeme – tell us all about it.
“The CO2 under the house debate here is stupid. Any decent geosequestration will be done miles from anywhere.”
Right. So you’ve sidestepped the real issue.
WHY SHOULD EVEN $1 BE SPENT ON SEQUESTRATION.
“If we continue to emit as we are we will change the tails of the extreme weather distributions – drought, flood, heatwaves, storms. Sea level not that urgent.”
No thats all lies. But lets see your evidence FOR these lies.
You see I’m afraid that nothing you said above was both relevant and true.
Lets go again.
Can you give me any reason at all that even $1 should be spent on this daft idea of sequestration???
Anybody else?
Luke clearly failed. We were just talking about CO2-sequestration.
Now there will be many problems and costs with this:
1. Why deny nature the extra robustness that CO2 brings.
2. Why deny us the cheaper food and less water requirements.
3. Why set up a health hazard. Risking a local catastrophe if the stored carbon is suddenly released?
4. Why impose billions of dollare in costs on everyone.
These numbered 1-through-4 are COSTS.
But thats not even the real issue.
We need to have some sort of reason to do this in the very first place.
Now Luke spouted a lot of stupid irrelevant nonsense.
But thats not what we were after. We wanted a reason to justify even $1 being spent on this foolishness.
Oh boring – do you have any new thoughts you dim wit.
No you see Luke we were after a reason for CO2 sequestration.
Its economic vandalism to be imposing costs on people for no reason at all. And whats happened is we’ve found out that there IS NO REASON to be imposing these costs.
And we’ve found out that they are massive costs. Not the least of which is denying the planet the enhanced CO2.
Australia’s most banned net troll. So vile and wanted by bloggers in every state. Running out of sites Bad Bird. Will be zero soon.
Actually an international embarrassment too. Birdy spreads his dropping around.
I’m not here to entertain you. Only to drag evidence out of you.
And prove to the others that there is nothing to the energy-deprivation fraud.
You get nothing punk. And you’re most entertaining – we don’t often get to study a full lunatic at close range. The only thing that’s energy deprived are your brain cells. All two of them.
Anyway the proof is that the SCSI’s new laser photon experiment which bounces CO2 frequency near-IR VLR laser spectrum off the moon and back is lagged by the CO2 absorption of the troposphere at all layers. The laser is neoydium-rubium based of course. Three decades of data gathered now since the moon landings verify the changing warming level precisely and the interaction with the CO2 outer shell orbitals. So there you have it – decisive proof – what’s wrong with that?
Now what is that evidence for fella?
What were you trying to produce evidence for with that little factoid?
You see you are supposed to clearly define a strict hypothesis and find whether the evidence backs it up. Not just say something thats totally irrelevant to what we are talking about.
But you are clearly bullshitting if you are claiming we’ve got three decades where CO2 and temperature correlate, with CO2 as the independent variable. With CO2 anitcipating temperature and therefore driving it.
CO2 LAGS temperature changes. As every lying leftist know.
No it does not – I has shown above that I’m right and you’re wrong. We have the data and there is nothing you can do about it. Look it up yourself. Bad luck chump – you lose.
You’re just a CO2 smothering drought lover right-wing Holocaust denying Nazi. You make me sick.
I think you have both disappeared up your own backsides, fellas. One is absolutely certain of environmental armageddon if CO2 is NOT stopped while the other is absolutely certain of economic armageddon if CO2 IS stopped.
Both positions betray a life overly devoted to abstracts rather than the vagueries of nature and reality. In the real world we deal with probabilities, a range of them, both favourable and unfavourable.
Whenever I listen to Luke and the Climate Cretins I am inclined to assign a lower probability to extreme climate costs simply because of the constant procession of deceptive argument and misleading devices from them.
Similarly, when I see Graeme Bird reduce the entire discussion to a few dot points my natural response is to wonder what is lurking over the hill to mug us with reality.
The solution is to encourage people to not just identify a most favoured, or most likely outcome but to assign the full range of probabilities to all likely outcomes. And of course, the sum of the probabilities must equal 1.0, it cannot exceed that number.
By assigning the full range of probabilities to all possible outcomes, a task the IPCC has conspicuously failed to do, the mind can only slip into the sloppiness of assuming a particular outcome in the face of it’s own inconsistency.
Clearly, there are a whole range of possible outcomes between a new ice age and a runaway climate toast-off. Especially when we add time to the mixture.
But what I find particularly boorish is when both Luke and Graeme conclude that I have somehow shifted position, or am playing the other sides game, when all I am doing is focussing attention on a different scenario within the range of possible outcomes.
In my assessment the probability of a new ice age is about the same as the probability of a climate toast-off, in the order of 0.02 each. And that leaves a whole 0.96 to be allocated to every possibility in between.
That is the brilliance of probability theory. To increase the weighting of one outcome one must also reduce the weighting of others. It demands balance, it introduces reason into places where it may not, normally, get much of an airing.
Ian – far too rational.
CO2 doesn’t cause droughts Luke you moron.
There is what we have good evidence for elevated levels of CO2 doing.
1. Increasing the robustness and diversity of the natural world.
2. Increasing plant resistance to drought (how about that Luke getting that 180 degrees wrong?).
3. Increasing the plants resistance to frost-damage.
4. Increasing the yield of plants that have adequate other nutrients.
5. Increasing the yield of plants A GREAT DEAL MORE that are stressed in some way.
So you clearly want people to die of hunger, thirst, and lack of weath, and low incomes. Given that you are working for less CO2 and energy-deprivation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now what are you up to MOTT. More idiocy no doubt. Lets take a quick look.
Alright. Not as bad as I thought. But AMAZINGLY unscientific. You are trying to act as though the centuries-old practice of SCIENCE is a parallel field to….. resolving squabbles between siblings under the age of 10.
This is totally inappropriate. Actually its totally moronic. What an idiot you are being. Showing a total lack of discrimination. SCIENCE-Mott???? Have you even HEARD of it??
Just try and stick with the science Mott.
And attempt not to be such an idiot next time.
Science Mott.
We’re only interested in the science.
(HAVE YOU GOT ANY?)
“In my assessment the probability of a new ice age is about the same as the probability of a climate toast-off, in the order of 0.02 each. And that leaves a whole 0.96 to be allocated to every possibility in between.”
Actually Mott. I’ve read your post over and it isn’t as bad as I thought.
But this part of it is just untenable. A toasting is impossible. Whereas, to pretend that we can avoid another ice age we have to ask WHAT HAS CHANGED?
Since Ice-age is the norm.
WE ARE IN A BRUTAL PULVERISING ICE AGE RIGHT NOW.
But we are in an interglacial. The interglacials are brief. The glacial periods are long-lasting.
THE GLACIAL PERIODS EXHIBIT THE NORMAL STATE OF PLANET EARTH.
So currently we are in an ABNORMAL time period.
Now here’s the thing. We can imagine that glacial-periods start with the glaciers coming off the mountains. And we can imagine that the extra CO2, though its effects on a decadal level at not much above sea… are so small that we cannot detect that effect.
(((((We must infer the effect because we cannot detect it.
Ian Plimers guess at .1% of the current temperature being CO2-induced strikes me as a very good guess since it doesn’t contradict anything that we already know.
You see it has to be that small or you couldn’t hide it.))))
But supposing its 1% 3 kilometres above sea level?
And suppose that the glacial periods are signigicantly affected by glaciers coming off the mountains at this higher region.
And also suppose that the CO2 warming is 1% (and not Ian Plimers informed guess of 0.1%) where the air is dry and windy so that the blowing wind freeze-dries the glaciers, more effectively, then they would be freeze-dried otherwise?
Then we can see that this seemingly tiny effect (that we don’t know about but are only inferring) could have a totally OUTSIZED infuence on whether we have a new glaciation or not.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THIS IS ALL SPECULATION.
Any of us can dream up an idea of how things might be different this time around. For the time being however we have to go with what we know.
What we know is that this interglacial has been longer then most but probably somewhat cooler in terms of its maximum warm periods.
The overall trend still appears to be down.
And the other thing we know is that since the Isthmus of Panama formed and this represented a fusing of North and South America… Since that time ITS BEEN THE NORM that this world has been a nasty place and a great deal of it covered in ice.
“In my assessment the probability of a new ice age is about the same as the probability of a climate toast-off, in the order of 0.02 each.”
You only use probablility when you don’t have a clue whats going on. But to have these possibilities as EQUAL is just crazy-talk.
Ice-Ages…. or more appopropriately GLACIAL-PERIODS….. are the NORM!!!!
How can it be a low probability if thats the norm of the planet?
SON: Where did those rocks come from Dad?
FATHER: The ice brought them.
SON: Where has the ice gone dad?
FATHER: Gone to get some more rocks.
Its just weird. That Luke here was begrudging a bit of improved (ie reduced) Albedo in the Far North.
Clearly somethings rotten with the state of science in the 21st century.
Wasting your time boofy-bird – not reading and not listening la la la la la la.
It seems Graeme Bird has a slight comprehension problem to boot. When I said “the probability of a new ice age is about the same as the probability of a climate toast-off”, it was on the assumption that most reasonable men and women would interpret this as meaning within the next century or two. That is, within the same time frame that the climate cretins are predicting a climate toast off.
Anyone who had seen any of my posts over the past two years on this blog would know that the thought of ruling out ANY future Ice Age would never cross my mind.
The notion that probability is some sort of parallel field to that of science is a new one on me, Graeme. A bit like suggesting science is independent of mathematics, only in the mind of a year niner.
If I had a bit more time at my disposal earlier I would have mentioned that the two outcomes with the highest probability would be slightly more and slightly less of “more of the same”. Neither of which made it into the IPCC scenarios but which owe their place and significance to the very well documented capacity of man to adapt, not with legislated targets and taxes, but with better technology that is taken up by functioning markets as and when those innovations stand on their own merits.
So do us all a favour, Graeme. Read every post twice before shooting your foot. And try a bit of roughage in the diet, you read like a guy who hasn’t had a bowel movement for three weeks. A bit of Cod Liver Oil might help too.
“It seems Graeme Bird has a slight comprehension problem to boot. When I said “the probability of a new ice age is about the same as the probability of a climate toast-off”, it was on the assumption that most reasonable men and women would interpret this as meaning within the next century or two. That is, within the same time frame that the climate cretins are predicting a climate toast off.”
But thats a stupid contention. And I would do well just to repeat what I said. There is NO chance of a massive warming. None at all.
The sun was on an 1150 year-high. Its got one way to go and that way is down.
You see you’ve got to go with the science fella. And not make things up on the basis of what we humans are squabbling about.
You should have mentioned the time period in the first place. But having done so it doesn’t make any difference. We are likely to see very substantial cooling during these next two centuries.
We won’t see any catastrophic warming in many millions of years.
We are likely to see very strong cooling within the next 3 decades.
So the energy-deprivation-movement simply has to be destroyed in an unambiguous way with real science. Not with people just instinctively sitting on the fence between the lunatics and those that would expose them.
You pulled those probabilities from out of a deep dark place. From another planet. Perhaps from Uranus.
So don’t pretend there is any science to what you did.
Bird-crap – Don’t you use “fella” mate. That’s Ian’s word.
And it’s funny that you dribble on about science yet refuse to read science papers. Why’s that? You wouldn’t be a total liar would you.
So now we are debating the distinction between zero probability of substantial warming and a 0.02 probability of substantial warming.
And when Graeme says, “We are likely to see very strong cooling within the next 3 decades”, he clearly does not mean it is absolutely certain that there will be a “very strong cooling”. He obviously means there is room in there for other outcomes.
So do us all a favour Graeme, first tell us what a “very strong cooling” would amount to in degrees C. And then tell us how “likely” this event will be by expressing it in number form.
Can we assume that your term, “likely” means a probability greater than 0.5? And if so, then some of us would like the opportunity to consider the other possible outcomes, on their merits.
At this stage all you have done is to portray your own guesstimates as if they were statistical certainties. And that sort of crap may work with your mum but it doesn’t cut the mustard here, me bucko.
“At this stage all you have done is to portray your own guesstimates as if they were statistical certainties.”
YOU LIAR!!!!!!!!!! This is what we call leftist projection. Leftists are mentally deranged in this way.
“At this stage all you have done is to portray your own guesstimates as if they were statistical certainties.”
THATS WHAT YOU DID YOU MORON!!!!! I didn’t do that thats what you did and I gave you are a hard time about it REMEMBER.
Now you are being rude. Lying like that. So stop lying. And now that I’ve tipped you off on your inherence mental derangement.
STATEMENT ONE OF THE DERANGED MOTT:
“In my assessment the probability of a new ice age is about the same as the probability of a climate toast-off, in the order of 0.02 each. And that leaves a whole 0.96 to be allocated to every possibility in between.”
AND THEN THE TOTALLY DERANGED LUNATIC FOLLOWED THAT UP WITH:
“At this stage all you have done is to portray your own guesstimates as if they were statistical certainties.”
LEFTIST PROJECTION.
Don’t do it again Mott you jerk!………………. (idiot).