Home > Regular Features > Fresh sand

Fresh sand

September 13th, 2010

The sandpit seems to be going well, so I’m starting a new one. Please continue any ongoing discussion in the old sandpit. Meanwhile, this is the place for new side-debates, matters arising, Strocchi-length theoretical expositions and so on.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Alan
    September 13th, 2010 at 15:25 | #1

    One is forced to ask whether the Strocchiads should be classified as theoretical or merely rhetorical in nature.

  2. Rationalist
    September 13th, 2010 at 15:43 | #2

    I would like to see a picture of this sand pit since I wish to construct a sand pit of my own so that I can make sandcastles and whatnot at any time of the day.

  3. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 13th, 2010 at 15:49 | #3

    Alan, maybe you should be asking Strocchi if he ever had a left-wing association before moving to the right.

  4. Ron E Joggles
    September 13th, 2010 at 16:22 | #4

    Rat, 4 railroad sleepers on edge, arranged in a square and filled with sand, will do nicely for 1 or 2 kiddies, just add more sleepers for larger gatherings. Moistening the sand will make it much easier to shape into castles and suchlike.

    The downside is the difficulty of stopping cats from crapping in it, and of course having your sandcastle knocked down by big smarty-pants kids. Look out, here comes Terje!

  5. Alan
    September 13th, 2010 at 16:35 | #5

    I would have thought the best advice on how to build castles out of sand would be available from Level 9, 377 Sussex Street, Sydney 2000 NSW.

  6. Rationalist
    September 13th, 2010 at 16:47 | #6

    @Ron E Joggles
    Good idea however it isn’t for kids… unless you count me as a big kid… oh wait….

  7. Donald Oats
    September 13th, 2010 at 18:02 | #7

    I’d much rather a tarpit.

  8. Alice
    September 13th, 2010 at 21:41 | #8

    @Donald Oats
    Ever since Strocchi renamed it the sin bin its been deserted! (maybe thats why the sandpit is working so well). I think the Prof means fresh desert sands.

    I wont be the only one tarred Don. Some of this lot have somewhere to go now with the long winded sidetracks….(and Ill have somewhere to go for a robust discussion) – straight to the fresh sands.

    Id rather it wasnt a tarpit. That would make me a tarbaby.

  9. el gordo
    September 16th, 2010 at 12:46 | #9

    The Holocene has reached its used by date?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

    Will CO2 save us?

  10. Ronald Brak
    September 16th, 2010 at 14:03 | #10

    El gordo, do you believe:

    1. CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, or

    2. Human activity has not increased CO2 concentration by about a third over the past two hundred years.

  11. Chris Warren
    September 16th, 2010 at 14:35 | #11

    el gordo :
    The Holocene has reached its used by date?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
    Will CO2 save us?

    This website misrepresents science.

    The data from ice cores shows that, unlike previous centuries, there has been no change in temperature for 129 years before 2000 (1870′s) until 2000 [ie 7 metres of core depth]

    Prior to this, temperature regularly varied, and the average over each 6-metres cohort was always less than from the 1870′s when a dramatically warmer pattern set in.

    The data clearly shows a warming trend due to some radical change in the atmosphere that hit the globe around the middle of the nineteenth century (1850+).

    The fact that all the variation that existed for the prior thousands and thousands of years, has been abolish, could be an artefact of industrialisation compromising the ecology.

    The facts these denialists put up as evidence for “heading-into-new-little-ice-age” in fact show the opposite.

    We are now locked into a permanent high, that has stuck for over 130 years.

    Data is at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat

  12. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 16th, 2010 at 15:24 | #12

    el gordo, a while ago there was a blogger (whom I cannot remember) was trying to incite violence. Did you write the following ‘In India we would expect bloodshed and might tell the Church-builders not to be surprised when it happens’.

  13. el gordo
    September 16th, 2010 at 16:17 | #13

    CW

    Thanks for those numbers. Do you consider Mann’s hockey stick legitimate?

  14. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 16th, 2010 at 17:03 | #14

    el gordo, for some reason I get the feeling I will not get a response from someone who has big reds jumping in the top paddock.

  15. el gordo
    September 16th, 2010 at 18:10 | #15

    That quote is not mine, although I admit to having a degree in Quote Mining.

  16. Michael of Summer Hill
    September 16th, 2010 at 19:40 | #16

    Tell me el gordo, who would want to impersonate a card carrying ‘denier’ of global warming who praises wright wing totalitarian regimes.

  17. Alice
    September 17th, 2010 at 06:06 | #17

    Moshie – el gordo should be in here – he has been warned. He is definitely not on the main page LOL. Havent we all done climate science delusionism to death? I think El Gordi could be related to Tony G.

  18. el gordo
    September 17th, 2010 at 07:16 | #18

    ‘Havent we all done climate science delusionism to death?’

    Give up the green pills, Alice.

  19. Chris Warren
    September 17th, 2010 at 11:48 | #19

    el gordo :
    ‘Havent we all done climate science delusionism to death?’
    Give up the green pills, Alice.

    This is a sand pit, not a cess pit.

    Can you find somewhere else to vent?

  20. Alice
    September 17th, 2010 at 12:04 | #20

    Chris – I note that Treasury has been completely cleared of “leaking” the coalitions costing black holes…very quietly and unobtrusively announced by Murdered media today.
    There were no leaks. Another artificial intelligence creation by the Coalition….

    Oh the lies. The lies. They ought to be called the Libellious Party, not the liberal party.

  21. Socrates
    September 17th, 2010 at 14:31 | #21

    I may have just posted this in the wrong place, but I thouglt some would enjoy it:

    In an amusing result for several “experts” the AEC hsa finally finshed the vote count and final tally with preference distribution. Labor WON by a small margin: 50.12 to 49.88
    http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2010/09/17/final-2pp-50-12-49-88-to-labor/comment-page-2/#comment-634110

    I wouldn’t pretend that this is a particular mandate for anything, but it certainly gives the lie to thoes claiming the coalition had “won” when the truth was that the margin was too close to call and the counting wasn’t finished.

  22. Fran Barlow
    September 17th, 2010 at 16:15 | #22

    Actually this is not so Socrates.

    Currently, the 2PP count is 93.21% complete.

    William Bowe has said that it is no longer mathematically possible for the ALP to lose the 2PP, but the count does continue.

  23. el gordo
    September 17th, 2010 at 16:48 | #23

    Well, hello Fran, fancy meeting you in Quiggin’s sandpit. Still pushing nuclear power over clean coal?

  24. Alice
    September 17th, 2010 at 17:50 | #24

    @Fran Barlow
    me thinks el gordo has been here before Fran under a different name – could it be Jimbo Rose?

  25. el gordo
    September 17th, 2010 at 18:07 | #25

    Call me Winston Smith. I want everyone to read this and get back to me with a critique.

    http://coinet.org.uk/sites/coinet.org.uk/files/Communicating_climate_change_to_mass_public_audiences_0.pdf

  26. September 17th, 2010 at 18:10 | #26

    I don’t think so Alice. One of the things I’m good at is picking tone, syntax and register. It’s very hard to disguise that if you post for any length of time.

    I’ve read enough of El Gordo’s material and Jim Rose’s as well and I very much doubt they share an author.

  27. el gordo
    September 17th, 2010 at 18:39 | #27

    Sir John Beddington has commissioned a summary of the science of global warming and you can see the Orwellian tone in his softly spoken words.

    ‘Nothing in e-mails or IPCC controversies rises to a level that would call into question the core understandings about global climate disruption.’

    Global climate disruption? I want global warming back, front and centre.

  28. Alan
    September 17th, 2010 at 19:27 | #28

    I would’ve thought it a lot more Orwellian to represent oneself, falsely, as someone from the far left who loves Julia in order to try and persuade people to accept your message. There may perhaps be someone out there on the ‘far left’ who ‘loves Julia’, but it would surprise me.

  29. Alice
    September 17th, 2010 at 19:32 | #29

    @el gordo
    You are too late el Gordo
    Even the miners want something done. So do have the denialists who have been reduced to silence in the face of right wing luminaries making noises about “doing something about it”. The Greens go the big swing in the last election – I wonder why? Even your own right wing types can see that change is in the air and they are going to be part of it or they will be left behind.
    El Gordo – tell me…will you be the last denialist still waving his little flag of nonsense into the wind where no-one (even in your own party) will even want to hear you?

    Sad – just sad.

  30. el gordo
    September 17th, 2010 at 20:34 | #30

    Thankyou for those reassuring words, Alice. The Denialati Party will never abandon me and I can’t imagine where you heard that rumor.

    I was hoping to find Fran, this morning’s Oz had an article by Scott Ludlam lecturing on nuclear power. Personally, I’m ambivalent on this issue and need a brief education.

    Ludlam is a Green and just a casual read will illustrate his ignorance on nuclear power.

  31. jakerman
    September 17th, 2010 at 20:55 | #31

    A way to deal with el gordo is to:

    a) confine his confine his OT trolling to the sand box, and:

    b) don’t engage him there.

    He left deltoid when he was ignored on his restricted thread. He’s pretty easy to ignore when you consider his points are weak/unconvincing, and lack relevance and substance.

  32. jakerman
    September 17th, 2010 at 20:59 | #32

    BTW,

    El gordo is an unemployed sports journalist from Bathurst. His family are ashamed of his antics and embarrassed when he talks global warming when out with friends. He claims his son joined Greenpeace, but he claims many things that remain unsupported.

    His interests included yanking your chain and diverting your attention. Engaging him leads to unproductive discussion.

  33. el gordo
    September 17th, 2010 at 22:38 | #33

    Janet Akerman, what a lovely surprise.

    jakerman is correct, just ignore me. Wait a minute…’he claims many things that remain unsupported.’

    Hmmm…like what exactly?

  34. Chris Warren
    September 17th, 2010 at 22:57 | #34

    @jakerman

    Does he have a drug problem?

  35. jakerman
    September 18th, 2010 at 00:07 | #35

    Chris, I don’t know, but he exhibits delusional behavior.

  36. Chris Warren
    September 18th, 2010 at 07:12 | #36

    He probably thinks people are talking about him.

  37. Ron E Joggles
    September 18th, 2010 at 07:36 | #37

    I wonder if that supercilious ass Christopher Pyne will continue to say that the Gillard government is “illegitimate”? The other good news today was confirmation that Stephen Fielding has lost his Senate seat, and even better, so has that upper-class twit Julian McGauran.@Socrates

  38. Alice
    September 18th, 2010 at 07:45 | #38

    @Ron E Joggles
    Dont speak too soon. Senator Fielding is about causing as much damage with Tony Abbott as he can before July next year. He already announced his intention to block supply (and everything else I imagine) if he can – publicly.

  39. Alice
    September 18th, 2010 at 07:50 | #39

    @jakerman
    Jackerman – not so long ago there was a “concern” troll in here who claimed he was once a member of Greenpeace, started out as an activist and then “saw the light” about AGW. Cant for the life of me recall his name but ..el gordo has definitely been here before and he hasnt just been watching from the sidelines.

  40. el gordo
    September 18th, 2010 at 08:36 | #40

    By chance I found John Quiggin’s name on a scrap of paper and came down for a look about a week ago. Can’t remember being here before that.

    Delusional? Highly unlikely.

  41. el gordo
    September 18th, 2010 at 08:51 | #41

    Fielding is no spoiler, from the smh.

    In a positive sign for the new minority Labor government, Senator Fielding praised Prime Minister Julia Gillard as a “very good negotiator” and a good listener.

    “I think she has a very good chance of making it work,” he said

  42. Alice
    September 18th, 2010 at 09:54 | #42

    @el gordo
    You are delusional el gordo – you have commented on Frans views historically here and other previous comments. You didnt just drop in here “about last week after noticing John Quiggin’s name on a scrap of paper”.
    What a load of old bollocks.
    DNFFT applies.
    Dear Prof – we need a cess pit now.

  43. jakerman
    September 18th, 2010 at 10:50 | #43

    Alice, I agree EG is delusional, however his comments on his past reading of Fran may be from deltoid.

  44. Ron E Joggles
    September 18th, 2010 at 11:36 | #44

    @Alice Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that there were no supply bills required before the new Senate sits. Perhaps someone who knows can enlighten me. In any case Fielding’s last few speeches in the Senate should be entertaining – Mc Gauran’s too, if he is still hyperventilating about “fraudulent” AGW evidence.

  45. el gordo
    September 18th, 2010 at 12:50 | #45

    I found JQ’s name on a scrap of paper in my top left hand pocket. Vaguely remembered, but didn’t know what to expect.

    This sandpit is addictive, congratulations to the author, certainly beats a Deltoid dungeon.

    In IPCC FAQ 6.2 they explain why climate change today is unusual.

    … ‘there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.’

    Simply unbelievable.

  46. Alice
    September 18th, 2010 at 13:11 | #46

    @Ron E Joggles
    I hope you are right Ron E (re supply)…as we an obviously expect the worst from Fielding who threw a little tanty because the Coalition didnt slide seamlessly into the leadership. I wont say that behaviour was limited to the Coalition as Penny Wong also threw a little tanty saying green votes were really labor’s. Im not that fond of seeing the unquestioning party loyalty slip showing.

  47. Alice
    September 18th, 2010 at 13:12 | #47

    @Alice
    rather above should say “limited to Coalition sympathisers masquerading as independents”

  48. September 18th, 2010 at 15:26 | #48

    @Ron E Joggles

    I thought that there were no supply bills required before the new Senate sits.

    That’s true. There aren’t. The 2010-11 budget has already passed and the 2011-12 budget can be put after June 30 2011, when the ALP will hold the numbers.

    Of course, even if this were not the case the claim that “Senator Fielding migh block supply” is boneheadedly ignorant and is repeated only because talking heads in this country (let’s not dignify them with the title “journalist”) are by and large intellectual indolents. The senate is not like the UN Security Council. Supply can be blocked only by half of the senate voting to reject or defer it, and the senate is composed of more than two senators. Fielding can propose that 33 other senators join him in taking this course, but Abbott has ruled this out, and even if he got it into his head to do this while they still had an equal number of senators and supply came up and all coalitionists maintained solidarity, it would not be Fielding “blocking supply” but the coalition blocking it with Fielding’s support.

    Fielding is not merely a fool, but a self-aggrandizing windbag who is, five and a bit years after sliming his way into the senate on the basis of a malign and idiotic piece of horsetrading by the ALP to get FF support for Jacinta Collins in NSW and screw the Greens in Victoria in favour of a Democrat, still dining on the utter and unremitting stupidity of the mainstream commentariat.

    It’s disappointing to see an echo of this rubbish here.

  49. Alice
    September 18th, 2010 at 17:59 | #49

    @Fran Barlow
    Fran – it was Fielding who first spouted it himself in the heat of not knowing whether his partisan support for the liberals was going to play out in terms of their leadership support. Ill be glad when that ratbag is gone. So will his electorate judging by his paltry votes. Ill admit to being bone headedly ignorant about parliamentary processes…frankly it bores me to death… when both major parties dont seem to even remotely connect with the electorate that votes them in.

  50. el gordo
    September 18th, 2010 at 18:04 | #50

    ” With climate change policy now being shaped by a cross-party committee comprising politicians and outside experts, Ms Gillard said that what she said before the election no longer applied.”

    A cross party committee without the conservatives? Outside experts not including Carter or Archibald?

    Looks like a dead rubber.

  51. Donald Oats
    September 18th, 2010 at 20:46 | #51

    @el gordo
    “The Australian” paper gives Carter’s opinion to those who choose to read it. Why waste taxpayer’s money giving him a nice little earner when all his expertise can be found already, in the newspaper archive?

  52. Donald Oats
    September 18th, 2010 at 21:06 | #52

    CO2 against year, as measured at Mauna Lau. Satellite measurements and ground based measurements have corroborated the ML time series at the time intervals in common.

    We can argue all week about how to measure, when and where to measure, and so on. None of that is much use in deciding who is right about whether AGW is going to be a growing problem, or at what point human contribution to greenhouse gases will be dwarfed by other climatic effects. The scientific case that humans are having a measurable impact upon climate has statistical merit as well as scientific merit, meaning that various climate variables are trending or accelerating in ways consistent with respect to the human-induced forces (aka forcings used in the numerical climate modelling of AGW). Whether that means humans as a whole can accept that as adequate evidence to actually try doing something about it is anybody’s guess. Personally, I currently doubt that humans will take the required steps to making the necessary (but possible insufficient) changes in behaviour to have a consequential effect.

  53. Tony G
    September 18th, 2010 at 22:30 | #53

    DO said,

    “Whether that means humans as a whole can accept that as adequate evidence to actually try doing something about it is anybody’s guess. ”

    So Donald what you are saying is there is no need to wreck the economy based on guess work.

    I agree lets see a bit more evidence before we start wrecking the economy by redistributing vast amounts of wealth.

  54. jakerman
    September 18th, 2010 at 22:54 | #54

    Tony G, What is your evidence that aligning our economy with environmental feedbacks will “wreck the economy”?

    There is ample evidence to price carbon.

  55. el gordo
    September 18th, 2010 at 22:58 | #55

    Woods Hole is covering all bases in this recent press release.

    ‘It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable.’

    What is the risk assessment on doing nothing? Throw the precautionary principle in the bin, adopt Bob Carter’s Plan B and prepare for any eventuality.

  56. Alice
    September 18th, 2010 at 23:20 | #56

    @Donald Oats
    El Gordo and Tony G are really a quaint minority now (is there a circus in town? They could earn good money for the show). El Gordo says he likes the sandpit but its only because he just got out of Deltoids Dungeon. Tony has been away or asleep for a while – but mention climate change and his house / car alarms all go off at once.

    BTW – there is a small article somewhere today (very very low key as per ususal for the content – could be fin rev) saying Treasury has released a study that shows that government borrowings have no significant effect on interest rates here in Australia and that the US has far more effect on our interest rates. Should we rewrite the textbooks now or do we need to ask permission?

    The US is a mess but seems about to run the money machine again. Bernanke is still flying in Friedman’s helicopter. Instead of employing men to dig holes they are going to drop money into banks, depreciate the currency, do a dance and pray for it to rain exports?.

    Trouble is the US has already exported a lot of its exporting inustries in the big globalisation gamble. Cant see it working. The problems are structural and deep and I doubt a change in the price of money is going to kickstart the US like they hope it will (plus other countries who have grown comfortable feeding US consumption wont like it one bit). U.S. is starting to look like 1990s Japan. Despite the talk of fiscal expansion – the dollars planned are simply miniscule relative to $ values of quantitive easings so far.

  57. Alan
    September 19th, 2010 at 07:43 | #57

    The full Woods Hole quote, with a link

    Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate can shift gears within a decade, establishing new and different patterns that can persist for decades to centuries. In addition, these climate shifts do not necessarily have universal, global effects. They can generate a counterintuitive scenario: Even as the earth as a whole continues to warm gradually, large regions may experience a precipitous and disruptive shift into colder climates.

    This new paradigm of abrupt climate change has been well established over the last decade by research of ocean, earth and atmosphere scientists at many institutions worldwide. But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.1

    It is important to clarify that we are not contemplating a situation of either abrupt cooling or global warming. Rather, abrupt regional cooling and gradual global warming can unfold simultaneously. Indeed, greenhouse warming is a destabilizing factor that makes abrupt climate change more probable. A 2002 report by the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said, “available evidence suggests that abrupt climate changes are not only possible but likely in the future, potentially with large impacts on ecosystems and societies.”2

  58. el gordo
    September 19th, 2010 at 08:34 | #58

    Alan, the records indicate tipping points because there is a sensitivity is the system, but we shouldn’t be too concerned.

    Back in the days when the Norse people were more adventurous, they are just discovering that the MWP was as warm as present.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100914/lf_nm_life/us_climate_vikings_1#

  59. Alan
    September 19th, 2010 at 08:37 | #59

    el gordo, it would probably be more interesting for you to defend misquoting Woods Hole than to raise an entirely new issue.

  60. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 08:55 | #60

    Alan that is EG’s MO, Gish and run. Best to ignore him, he’s unconvincing and a time waster.

    Tony G, I’ll be interested when you can provide that evidence I requested.

  61. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 08:56 | #61

    Jackerman @4 said

    “What is your evidence that aligning our economy with environmental feedbacks will “wreck the economy”…… well…

    “Wind farms would cost between $100 and $125 per megawatt hour, compared with $30 to $40 per MWh for coal.”

    “Thanks to feel-good Green policies, such as the renewable energy targets, which mean that electricity will have to be generated by useless wind turbines rather than plain-old efficient coal. Power bills are already creeping up, and it will only get worse, good people of Australia:”

    Increases of that magnitude will wreck the economy.

    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=4613

  62. Chris Warren
    September 19th, 2010 at 09:35 | #62

    Comments like TonyG’s that the economy will be wrecked if we fix the environment are just propaganda for capitaists.

    We can have a sustainable economy and a sustainable environment.

    In fact this is what we need.

    So no more TonyG.

  63. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 09:35 | #63

    So Tony’ s G’s evidence is that wind cost more that polluting coal. That is a very one sided costing Tony. It ignores the externalities of coal, and ignores the ranges of alternatives available (ie. efficiency).

    You may be interested to recall that a price on carbon of $20/tonne will raise the average household electricity bills by less than 12% (less for industrial users with discount contracts).

    Comparable with wide price hikes of the GST. However the revenues are surplus to the current budget and can be feed back to drive innovation.

    Innovation in areas like design production, manufacturing, and agriculture. And becauase green power drives more jobs per kWh it will drive jobs on multiple fronts. I.e. that is the opposite of wrecking the economy. It is saving us and setting up our economy for the long term.

    Tony G may also be interested to recall that a price on carbon is such a sound idea and so economically responsible that the Coalition under Howard promised one in their 2007 election campaign.

    The GST did not ru

  64. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 09:37 | #64

    Fix: the GST did not “wreck the economy”, nor will are price on carbon.

  65. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 10:01 | #65

    If Australia turned off everything and cut emissions to zero and everybody lived under a tree in the dark, carbon would still increase in the atmosphere at 1.25 ppm per year regardless.

    Coal is one of the cheapest methods for producing power, so switching to anything else is a more expensive method of power generation. If it is going to cost more, thus reducing living standards and wrecking the economy what’s the point, as it will only give feel-good Greenies an warm feeling inside and will have no effect on the ‘presumed’ AGW.

    Adopting feel-good Green policies is pointless as carbon would still increase in the atmosphere at 1.25 ppm every year .

  66. Chris Warren
    September 19th, 2010 at 10:10 | #66

    @Tony G

    If, if, if …. means nothing – this is just propaganda.

    Coal as a fossil fuel is the most expensive methods of producing power once you add up all the costs to society.

    Adopting feel-good policies now results in a future society that actually feels good and people are protected from damage to the ecosystem.

  67. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 10:11 | #67

    Tony G writes: “If Australia turned off everything…”

    Reads like a such an obvious strawman, are you raising the white flag and giving up on reasoned argument?

    Here is hint, cross national comparison show that competitiveness rise when one prices carbon. Innovation aligned with our well being, and environmental feedbacks is what counts not burning dirty fuel.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/open_thread_53.php#comment-2803099

  68. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 10:38 | #68

    On a humorous note lest examine this meme:

    “Coal is one of the cheapest methods for producing power, so switching to anything else is a more expensive method of power generation. If it is going to cost more, thus reducing living standards and wrecking the economy what’s the point

    This is logically analogous to arguing that buying insurance, will cost the economy more and hence wreck the economy. In fact, on another level its analogous to arguing that if we but better safer cars we will wreck the economy.

  69. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 10:42 | #69

    Interestingly the big car producers in the US make a similar claim fighting the legislation of air bags, claiming one airbag per car would wreck the industry. Today they are advertising to consumers the benefits of 6 airbags per car.

    And the US industry is weak compared to the more highly regulation compliant European manufacturers.

  70. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 11:28 | #70

    Chris W said;

    “Coal as a fossil fuel is the most expensive methods of producing power once you add up all the costs to society.”

    What costs? carbon isn’t a poison, if plants didn’t have carbon to breath they would die and we would starve. There is a need for plenty of carbon in the atmosphere, 20 times more than we put up there.

    Cost “$30 to $40 per MWh for coal.” everything else costs a lot more . There are no hidden costs in using coal, so it is by far heaps cheaper. In fact photovoltaic production is highly toxic to the environment and so is nuclear, they are the industries with hidden costs.

  71. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 11:35 | #71

    Chris W said;

    “Coal as a fossil fuel is the most expensive methods of producing power once you add up all the costs to society.”

    What costs? carbon isn’t a poison, if plants didn’t have carbon to breath they would die and we would starve. There is a need for plenty of carbon in the atmosphere, 20 times more than we put up there.

    Cost “$30 to $40 per MWh for coal” everything else costs a lot more . There are no hidden costs in using coal, so it is by far heaps cheaper. In fact photovoltaic production is highly toxic to the environment and so is nuclear, they are the industries with hidden costs.

    Jackerman there is proof that airbags reduce the road toll, but as Donald said above, there is no ‘proof’ that man can control the climate outside of his car.

  72. Alice
    September 19th, 2010 at 12:11 | #72

    Suggest everyone stop feeding these two.

  73. Chris Warren
    September 19th, 2010 at 12:12 | #73

    What costs?

    Climate change

    Only fools say there is a need for 20 times as much carbon in the atmosphere, so I hope this is not what you intended to say.

  74. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 13:13 | #74

    Tony, science don’t work by proof, it works by preponderance of evidence. There is strong evidence that our rising GHG concentration poses a serious risk.

    But regardless there are economic reasons to price carbon.

  75. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 13:21 | #75

    there is proof that airbags reduce the road toll

    Interestingly that did not stop the lobby machine fighting it. BTW I’m sure I could mimic denialist conspiracy theory’s to put a disingenuous denialist argument that airbags do not reduce the road toll.

  76. el gordo
    September 19th, 2010 at 13:49 | #76

    Alan, I agree with Woods Hole.

  77. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 14:02 | #77

    “Only fools say there is a need for 20 times as much carbon in the atmosphere, so I hope this is not what you intended to say.”

    No Chris, there is a need for 20 times more carbon in the atmosphere than we put up there.

    Less than 5% of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from anthropological sources, the other 95% comes from non man made sources; either way 100% ( i.e non and anthropological sources) is naturally occurring as man is the apex predator of the earth’s natural environment.

    Chris if you started reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere our ecosystem would start dying.

    J
    Jackerman,

    Nothing in science can be ‘proved’, but the scientific method usually dictates whether some thing is scientific.

    The Scientific Method generally has 3 components;
    1. Make Observations.
    2. Propose a Theory.
    3. Use the Theory to Predict Future Observations.
    then Falsification. An important point here is that if the prediction fails then the theory must be discarded or changed; as was the case with AGW; they couldn’t prove it was getting warmer so they invented a new foe, climate change. (something that has always changed; it is a bit hard to advocate non climate change)

    Climate Change is an Unscientific Theory, nothing more. If your theory makes no prediction, then it cannot be tested and hence it is not scientific. It still might be the correct explanation, it is just not scientific because the scientific method cannot be used to falsify it. There are many theories out there which cannot be tested, masquerading as scientific theories in order to have credibility Climate Change is one of them. Be on the lookout for for others.

  78. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 14:11 | #78

    Tony, Fourier and Arrhenius did this work a long time ago. Back in the 1980s it was hypothesized that given the rise in GHGs a warming signal should be detectable, so observations were conducted and that hypothesis was supported.

    The AGW theory is supported with multiple lines of evidence. And it certainly does not require monotonic warming to support it. the rate of warming approx 0.015 deg C per year is such that is its swamped by internal variability in the short term. non the less on th scale of 15 -20 years the GHG forced warming dominate internal variability.

    Climate change/Global warming is certainly a sound scientific theory with strong supporting evidence.

  79. September 19th, 2010 at 14:38 | #79

    Tony G lied as follows:

    Less than 5% of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from anthropological sources, the other 95% comes from non man made sources

    It is very clear. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are AT LEAST equal to the current atmospheric concentration less the longterm pre-industrial range. i.e Current (390ppmv) – pre-industrial (180ppmv-280ppmv) i.e AT LEAST 110ppmv/390ppmv i.e. approx. 28% of current atmospheric concentrations.

    Anthropogenic augmentation of CO2 to the total biosphere is of course far larger as the above calculation does not include those emissions held in marine and terrestrial sinks, biota etc and which are therefore part of the flux. If sinks had not absorbed these post-industrial emissions and instead remained static, atmospheric concentrations would be far higher than at present.

    It is worth noting that these sinks are themselves a finite resource. Their past capacity to absorb and temporarily hold CO2 cannot be relied upon, especially in circumstances where the Earth is warming, the upper clines of the ocean are becoming saturated with CO2, phytoplankton are being harmed, forests are in retreat, and a new pulse will follow decomposition of the Arctic tundra permafrost.

  80. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 15:01 | #80

    I am glad you point that out, Jackerman, yes the imagined rate of warming is indeed swamped by the variability of the observations. The variability is thousands of times wider than your percieved warming in both directions This renders any hypothesis as to a rate or direction of any temperature change to be scientifically inconclusive.

    It still might be the correct explanation, it is just not scientific or conclusive, just as Donald outlined above. Therefore, there is no necessity at this point in time to wreck the economy by implementing a massive new carbon tax, one which will do nothing except redistribute wealth from the productive to the non productive in our society.

  81. Alice
    September 19th, 2010 at 15:22 | #81

    @Tony G
    Dont you mean lets avoid ” a great big new tax on everything” Tony G. Oh puhleese. This is a tired Abbott argument – in fact as I recall its his only policy – why doesnt Abbott just come out and say “lets avoid doing anything at all about anything”.

  82. Donald Oats
    September 19th, 2010 at 15:30 | #82

    @Tony G

    The Scientific Method is a wooden construction by anthropologists, made by examining the behaviour of scientists across a few disciplines, and then summarising in a neat conclusion. The dogma of the Scientific Method is useful in aiding discussion or perhaps the initial education of a person into the notional view of what it is that scientists do; what distinguishes them from, for example, a bunch of broomsweepers or car mechanics. In actual fact, by the process of observation – neat irony intended – it may be established that scientists do not work in such a manner. With a metaphorical mallet in hand, perhaps some hours here or there in the business of doing science could be belted into the Scientific Method, but that should clearly be too little to use as the exemplar of Scientific Method.

    The point I try to make time and again – unsuccessfully, apparently – is that there is strong corroborating evidence that we are in a period of Anthropogenic Global Warming, not that we are in a period of all regions on Earth warming simultaneously. The changes that may take place are profound, and exactly as the press release above says, these changes may at first sight seem contradictory – paradoxial – to the notion of AGW. The point is that closer examination and thought applied to the question of what can happen and what is likely to happen, is the domain of scientists. It is their specialty.

    I’ve recommended Richard Alley’s book [Abrupt Climate Change - Inevitable Surprises, NAP Books, 2002], in which he discusses abrupt climate change – disruptive climate change – and I’ve recommended Imbrie & Imbrie ["Ice Ages", Harvard University Press, 1979], and Wally Broecker’s ["Fixing Climate", Hill and Wang, 2008], and Peter Ward’s ["Under a Green Sky",Collins, 2007]. For an appreciation of where scientists were at 15 odd years ago on the subject of natural variability, have a gander at the e-book (free) Natural Climate Variability, especially the conclusions.

    Two other interesting items by Richard Alley I give here.

    First, there is his 2002 book called The two-mile time machine: ice cores, abrupt climate change, and our future. Chapter V, called “Fuelish” gives a fairly clear statement as to what is meant (back in 2002 or earlier) by “scientific consensus”. Suffice to say, anyone whinging about how it’s impossible to get “consensus” on AGW should read Alley’s books first, noting that several pre-date “the science is settled” whoopla, which was specifically due to comments at the 2007 IPCC meeting.

    Then there is the cheerfully dissonant talk given by Alley in which many of these strands are brought together in a stark depiction of where humanity is choosing to venture through its actions.

  83. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 15:34 | #83

    Tony, I note that the fragility of your claims requires you to cherry pick and hence misrepresent my argument. Just as you did with Don statement.

    The warming trend is approx 0.15 degrees per decade for 40 years. That being sufficient time for the forced trend to dominate internal variability.

    Making false claims is not convincing Tony. In fact it has the opposite effect.

  84. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 15:35 | #84

    BTW Tony, you failed to sustain your claims of “wrecking the economy” hence falling back on that now is logical fallacy. First sustain it before your rely on it.

  85. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 16:15 | #85

    Jackerman, Specifically, what known fallacy are you referring to? the one where the variability in temperature readings is a thousand times wider than any purported temperature trend?

    Alice, that does more accurately describe the tax!

    Fran said “as the above calculation does not include those emissions ”

    It is convenient to ignore the source of 95% of carbon in the atmosphere isn’t it Fran?
    Fluxing clearly indicates that 5% of the carbon in the atmosphere comes from anthropological sources, the other 95% comes from non man made sources.

  86. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 16:52 | #86

    the variability in temperature readings is a thousand times wider than any purported temperature trend?

    Yes that is complete bunk. The radiative forcing of CO2 changes is between 1-2 W/m^2. This is a magnitude such that even large internal cycles ten times that size are dominated by the relentless cumulative forcing adding year on year.

    Hence you get this trend despite the noisy cycles.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:240/plot/gistemp/last:240/trend

  87. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 17:00 | #87

    Specifically, what known fallacy are you referring to? the one where the variability in temperature readings is a thousand times wider than any purported temperature trend?

    This one:

    This renders any hypothesis as to a rate or direction of any temperature change to be scientifically inconclusive.

    And this one:

    to wreck the economy by implementing a massive new carbon tax, one which will do nothing except redistribute wealth from the productive to the non productive in our society.

    Both unsupport, both contradicted, hence both fail the logical fallacy test.

  88. September 19th, 2010 at 17:52 | #88

    @Tony G

    Note, non-responsive:

    It is convenient to ignore the source of 95% of carbon in the atmosphere isn’t it Fran?

    He simply repeats the lie in another form.

  89. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 18:36 | #89

    Australia contributes 1.28% of world carbon emissions. If Australia cut emission by 100% that would still leave 98.75% of the 1.5ppm annual carbon accumulation unchanged.

    Jackerman you can put your ‘argumentum ad ignorantiam’ where it fits, because the logical conclusion to draw is 1.25% of 1.5ppm pa is sweet FA.

    Taxing carbon in Australia is illogical unless your argument stated that the top ten emitters who are responsible for 66% of emissions were also going to do meaningful cuts or a tax at the same time.

    They ain’t so…..

    Your carbon tax doesn’t bring the big emitters on board, until it does it will only give feel-good watermelons a warm feeling inside and it will have no effect on the ‘presumed’ AGW. Also, it will redistribute the wealth unnecessarily and put the Australian economy at a disadvantage to the economies of the big emitters who do not have tax or restrictions on carbon.

    Fran The IPCC’s AGW theory states that 95% of the carbon going into the atmosphere is naturally occurring and 5% is anthropogenic, yet 95% of the 1.5ppm that stays there each year is miraculously anthropogenic, I know this is confusing but take it up with the IPCC.

  90. Tony G
  91. frankis
    September 19th, 2010 at 18:49 | #91

    People please! Tony G is not a liar (unless he’s being paid to peddle his nonsense, something I find hard to believe) – he’s a guy trying to save the world just like everybody else. In his case he sees the threat as economic, posed by any action that might put a price on carbon emissions. Where others see the great promise of new industries in clean and renewable energies and the possibility of economic growth, Tony fears economic armageddon by carbon tax. It’s simply economic alarmism, if you like, but it remains to be seen how this story pans out. Tony may be right to fear economic catastrophe – it’s possible!

    However on the matter of Tony’s denial of the fact that we are wrecking the dynamic balance of Earth’s greenhouse atmosphere with excessive CO2 and other GHG emissions, the perfectly nice bathtub-filling analogy, used recently by the late lamented Stephen Schneider on Insight, can be adapted to answer. (If Tony’s listening then that’s great but really this is for anyone else unfortunate enough to have been taking him seriously): consider water running into a bathtub at a rate, for argument’s sake, of 100 litres per minute while simultaneously the tub drains through its open plughole at the same rate of 100l/min. Inputs and outputs are balanced so the level of water in the tub is not changing – it is constant at 100mm, or 1000mm, or whatever it’s been.

    Now suppose that to the incoming stream of water we add just 1 litre per minute of anthropogenic CocaCola. It’s a small fraction of the “natural” flow of 100 l/min but bear in mind that until now the natural inflow has been precisely balanced by an outflow also of 100 l/min. In the case of our atmosphere, by the way, the atmospheric level of CO2 had been in balance at quite close to 280ppm for a remarkably long period of time up until the advent of industrialisation a couple of centuries ago.

    The bathtub’s balance has now been slightly upset and all else equal, if water and CocaCola continue to flow in at a combined rate of 101 l/min while outflow stays limited to the “historical” rate of 100 l/min …… well nobody I think will need much persuading that the volume of fluid in the tub will now be rising at a nett rate of 1 l/min.

    What is perhaps tripping up Tony is that, even when the tub is getting perilously close to overflowing, because the Coke is only 1 part in 101 of the inflow at all times the mixture of fluid in the tub at any time should be at least 100 parts water to every part CocaCola. That sounds like a small fraction of anthropogenic Coke in the mix so where’s the problem? To Tony G, that the tub is about to overflow and possibly wreak havoc on things around it doesn’t seem anywhere near as alarming as the thought of having to pay more for his CocaCola (the horror!)

    Tony won’t want to understand this analogy (to the fact that our carbon emissions have already badly upset Earth’s greenhouse balance despite their fraction of the atmosphere at any time remaining small) because, I suppose, he’s petrified by economic alarmism; but I hope this may have helped someone else.

  92. Tony G
    September 19th, 2010 at 18:58 | #92

    I clearly understand your parable frankis, but I do not share your faith. It is not coke, it is all water (carbon) and you can not differentiate one litre (ppm) from another.

  93. jakerman
    September 19th, 2010 at 19:01 | #93

    Tony may be right to fear economic catastrophe – it’s possible!

    Hardly plausible given its comparable to the cost of the GST, and will bring forward and job intensive innovation, setting up industry for the future.

    Tony, your bunk about Australia’s portion of emissions is bunk because it is in the context of establishing a global agreement.

    Being among the richest nations, being among the nations with the greatest capacity to cut emission quickly, and being among the highest per capital polluters, it is a moral duty to reverse our role as a chain dragger and catch up with the leadership nations.

    It just so happens that there are also economic incentives to taking this moral step. Not to mention health benefits.

  94. el gordo
    September 19th, 2010 at 19:06 | #94

    Around 115,000 BP there was a warm spike before we slumped into glacial conditions.

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7005/full/nature02805.html

    The authors don’t mention CO2 at the end of the Eemian.

  95. frankis
    September 19th, 2010 at 19:27 | #95

    Tony you don’t understand it; perhaps if you’d try to explain to someone where you think it is in that parable that faith becomes involved – it doesn’t – you might in the process discover what you’ve been misunderstanding. In the parable it is all fluid, but the anthropogenic Coke makes all the difference to the fluid balance. So it is in our atmosphere, with our gas emissions throwing the CO2 balance out from 280ppm to ~390ppm today. Add to that our other GHG emissions such as methane, CFCs, etc.

  96. September 19th, 2010 at 21:44 | #96

    @frankis

    Of course Tony G is a liar. He repeats something he knows to be false, in order to oppose economic changes that contradict his cultural preferences.

    His cultural preference is also a form of obsessive, fetishistic, fundametalist madness, but that’s beside the point. Like his fellow culture warriors on the right, knowing that the truth is inconvenient, and perhaps fatal to the cause, he is prepared to lie outright to secure his end.

    Some would say he already has his end in hand, and that should be enough, but I’m too polite to go there.

  97. Chris Warren
    September 19th, 2010 at 22:35 | #97

    I don’t know whether David Irving is a liar or whether the tobacco industry are liars, but like them TonyG is not trying to “save the world”.

    He is trying to save his growth-first economy at the expense of the atmosphere, and in prosecution of this, threatens great horror (wrecking the economy) to muddy the waters and disrupt normal consideration of these issues.

    All the serious underlying objective research has been published and verified, so his motive can only be political.

    An economy that does not increase CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is the only option and this can be a perfectly reasonable and desirable free from incompetent provocations such as “wrecking’.

  98. Chris Warren
    September 19th, 2010 at 22:38 | #98

    …. a perfectly reasonable and desirable economy free from ….

  99. frankis
    September 19th, 2010 at 22:58 | #99

    If we look for instance at #41 – wouldn’t delusionalism suffice to explain Tony’s irrelevant reference to “faith”, and his complete missing of the analogy’s point? It’s about arithmetic, Tony’s certain it’s about faith.

  100. Alan
    September 19th, 2010 at 23:42 | #100

    I suspect Tony G is talking to himself as much as anyone, repeating this nonsense over and over to help him maintain his belief system.

Comment pages
1 2 8814
Comments are closed.