Call a priest, call a vicar, oh no - it's the Lavoisier Society. My cursor was drawn to the link as if by a life of its own. I was powerless. I didn't have my spare crucifix with me and it opened their site. I felt compelled to read. Oh the pain.

Such powerful magic can only be countered with new medicine from the ever helpful RC who have kindly pointed out a new contrarian slayer blog:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/

Phew that was close !

But Louis shouldn't worry - his site is still the best for stress relief.

Phil, So you won't consider the substance of the post, because I quote someone from Lavoisier?

Religious intolerance !

How do taxi licences provide a relevant or valid comparison to units of GHG emission? The nature of the activity is different. Does the license provide an incentive, eg does the taxi owner have reasonable options to reduce the need for a taxi license (will he buy a rickshaw or horse and cart instead)? The emissions trading schemes can encourage emitters to reduce emissions where the marginal cost of doing so is less than the marginal cost of emitting.

What does "at least some European governments have survived" mean? Have any european govts collapsed because of emissions trading?

You ask about industry movements. There have been some away from sth-west europe to east Europe. Not only do the new eastern members of the EU have cheap and willing labour, but they've got friendly low flat tax rates too. So where there was cheaper labour recently on the Iberian Peninsula, it's now cheaper in the newer member states, hence some of Spain's industry investments are lagging. Further, some of the eastern countries have great IT skills which attract industry.

There are some thriving sector investments into GHG offsetting programmes in other countries, eg some projects trying to reforest threatened habitats in LDCs.

BTW: post spells 'Britian' 3 times. Odd.

fixed spelling of Britain. thanks.

Phil

But what do you think of the taxi example? Should we close a few electricity generators to meet emission standards, Phil? As Jennifer mentioned, Spain forced a glass factory to close down. What do you think, phil?

Actually except for the first one he has got it 180 degrees wrong. His 9 'lies' neatly sum up the scientific consensus as long as you title the first page with lets say "Global Warming in a Nutshell".

As for the rest I played Global Warming Skeptic Bingo (http://timlambert.org/2005/04/gwsbingo/) and got 4 in a line - B I N G O !!!!!!!!!!! by page 12.

1. hockey stick is broken
2. climate modelling is not scientific
3. bit chancy but there was the oreskes paper so I am claiming the consensus one
4 . The IPCC report bla blah

bingo

I reckon I could get another one by page 16 - anyone want to try?

Joe - how's your trades? I guess you want me to argue with you don't you. You sound angry Joe.

"In the first instance, large electricity users such as aluminium smelters and fertilizer plants would relocate to other countries."

To where the electricity is even more expensive? The fertiliser industry in the USA has relocated because of price of natural gas - nothing to do with emission trading.

*How do taxi licences provide a relevant or valid comparison to units of GHG emission?*

Both are examples of centralised planning using artificial means to control production.

>But what do you think of the taxi example? Should we close a few electricity generators to meet emission standards, Phil? As Jennifer mentioned, Spain forced a glass factory to close down. What do you think, phil?

Joe the laws of physics don't care much for economics or glass. Add CO2 you get warming, add a lot of CO2 and you will get a lot of warming.

It would be refreshing to hear the Lavoiser's solution to climate change. The buy bucket, fill with sand, then firmly plant head does not really cut it.

David

The clever thing about govts rog, is that they can think LONGER term and listen to smart guys like David. Markets can't think or plan, and market players don't think beyond imminent purchases/sales or upcoming shareholder meetings.

Even while the economists are threatening each other with sharpened pencils over the scenario assumptions, govts can listen to good science then plan ahead and introduce new markets. What you have for emissions trading are lovely new markets for wealth creation and perpetual economic growth.

I'm sure the lurking economists will be quick to advise you how efficient new markets that encourage business innovation, knowledge sharing and increased technological R&D can foster a state of nirvana that's modern endogenous economic growth.

rog - "Both are examples of centralised planning using artificial means to control production."

And electricity subsidies to aluminium smelters are what?????

Generally speaking subsidies are used by govts to attract large industries eg the States are always 'doing deals' to capture business and as the States own the infrastructure and resources you have....

rog - so therefore subsidies to attract renewable energy and associated job creating industries to a state are OK then and are not a greenie socialist plot.

New report on global greenhouse emissions
http://www.wmo.int/web/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg-bulletin-en-03-06.pdf

Not reducing as some posters would have you believe.

From the report:
Mean annual absolute increase during last 10 years CO2 1.9
CH4 3.7
N2O 0.8

Ender, a subsidy by a govt is an extra over payment (over the true value) using funds diverted from the taxpayer; you cant create jobs with subsidies you still work from others.

Govt subsidies mean you pay more for the same goods. Therefore someone else loses (insert health, education, police.. .. ..)

This is a major tenant of Labor Govts, by shifting funds here and there they stimulate growth. It is also a major fallacy as they need to raise taxes (costs) to pay for 'growth'.

still = steal

rog - "Govt subsidies mean you pay more for the same goods. Therefore someone else loses (insert health, education, police.. .. ..)"

So therefore we should charge aluminium smelters the normal retail price for electricity so the other consumers do not have to pay more for their power?

Phil, reading Ender's and your ideas, we would have to read about poverty in Niger, we would be living it.

Ender, relocating a aluminum plant is sheer nonsense and you don't even realize it.

Phil, what about the taxi example?

joe - "Ender, relocating a aluminum plant is sheer nonsense and you don't even realize it."

No I do realise it. The person that wrote the BS in the top of this post does not realise it:

"Emission licences for power stations or petrol refineries would operate in the same way. What is not known is how great the tax on carbon emissions would have to be to ensure that electricity users would reduce their consumption by the desired amount. In the first instance, large electricity users such as aluminium smelters and fertilizer plants would relocate to other countries."

Ender

So your solution would be that those industries that get up your goat would be "terminated" from our shores, right? So how does that exactly reduce emissions if these industries relocate several thousand miles away. I know I'm pretty dumb but I can't quite see the reduction here. Maybe you or Phil could help me work it out.

The bear faced fact about emission trading bullshit is that it would function as a transferable tax. Someone is gunna have to sit in the dumb chair and pay it.

Ender, the real story behind all this is that extremists like you and Phil aren't so much interested in reducing emissions in a economically neutral sort of way, that is , through technological improvements and innovation. You're only interested in a turnkey operation. As energy is the life blood of a modern economy it is easy to shut things down by turning the key on its use. You hate what we are and simply want to send us back to the stone age.

Well, as electors say (those who have voted for Howard over the last 10 years): over my dead body.

Same goes for me.

David
"Joe the laws of physics don't care much for economics or glass. Add CO2 you get warming, add a lot of CO2 and you will get a lot of warming",

I say bring it on. In fact stop trying to reduce emissions, as in the long run it is suicidal. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the better it is for all species. Plant life thrives and therefore mammals do well.

Warming is a good thing, a great thing. The warmer it is the better for life on earth. Notice one thing. Ever thought to ask why there are about 2500 species of higher form life living in the Amazon River? That is about as many as there are in the South Atlantic combined. It's huge. Could it because higher life thrives in warm weather?

In fact if I had my way I would ensure nearly all emission standards were banned as potential future life threatening. Make more smoke I would say.

For the past 3 million the planet has survived under holocaust conditions of glaciations for 90% of the time. It Kills life! We are about due for another cold spell, or as someone else called it, "the white death", right now. So do your bit and prevent it from happening over the next few hundred years. Burn leaves in your back garden and take out the catalytic converter out of your car. Every bit helps.

Joe - don't assume you're speaking for me. I'm an extremist am I - take a hike !

You obviously unable to tell the difference between CO2 and CO. But I bet you know the value of a dollar - particularly for you.

And higher life thrives in the warmer climes does it - what simplistic rot - life thrives anywhere it can become adapted. You may have noticed that most of our science and technological innovation comes from cooler parts of the world. Not much science out of the Congo.

And if you're by yourself in the Amazon contemplating the majesty of it all, you might also notice how things rot quickly and there are such a myriad of parasitic things that want to nibble, bite and infest you (sort of like in financial circles).

Deserts are warm too and don't seem to have near the amount of life as does the Amazon. Have a look where the world's deserts are located - it's usually for climatic reasons. So warm doesn't always = more life.

As they say "just add water". Heaps of CO2 and no water - heaps of CO2 and no life. You haven't discovered Jack's beanstalk mate.

If you took your mind of the boil you might start to ask some sensible questions.

joe - "So your solution would be that those industries that get up your goat would be "terminated" from our shores, right?"

No just much more effort placed in re-cycling as Aluminium can be recycled almost endlessly and it takes 5% of the energy to recycle aluminium as it does to refine it. Also there are several methods to drastically reduce the amount of electrity that is needed to smelt aluminium. In the current subsidised energy regime there is no incentive for the companies to reduce energy use.

"Ender, the real story behind all this is that extremists like you and Phil aren't so much interested in reducing emissions in a economically neutral sort of way, that is , through technological improvements and innovation."

I do not know what prompted this rant however I am not an extremist by any measure. Energy is the lifeblood of an economy however unless you can manufacture food from raw materials like plants then really the most important resource on the planet is the ecosystem that supports food growth. If we destroy that then the economy will seem like a distant memory.

"Warming is a good thing, a great thing. The warmer it is the better for life on earth. Notice one thing. Ever thought to ask why there are about 2500 species of higher form life living in the Amazon River? That is about as many as there are in the South Atlantic combined. It's huge. Could it because higher life thrives in warm weather?"

Simplistic BS like this really annoys me. It is warm in the Gibson Desert so by your reasoning that warm is better the Gibson desert should be Australia's breadbasket. There is no way to predict at the moment who will be the winners and losers when the climate changes.

There will come a time possibly thousands of years in the future when we will need our heat shield to lessen the impact of the next glaciation. The current CO2 will last about a hundred years after the last coal is burnt and the last oil is consumed possible in about 200 years so what will we do then? If you are really concerned about the long term future of the planet then the current fossil fuels should be preserved for the future when it will be needed. Unless of course you want to muck around with the Methane Calthrites however you would have to be insane to try that one. See below

"In fact if I had my way I would ensure nearly all emission standards were banned as potential future life threatening. Make more smoke I would say.

For the past 3 million the planet has survived under holocaust conditions of glaciations for 90% of the time. It Kills life! We are about due for another cold spell, or as someone else called it, "the white death", right now. So do your bit and prevent it from happening over the next few hundred years. Burn leaves in your back garden and take out the catalytic converter out of your car. Every bit helps. "

This particular section of BS just demonstrates your ignorance - I suggest that you adopt this song as your theme for this consumption campaign
(can't post the link however I am sure you know the song "I'm an ******le by David Leary).

Just for the end I suggest that you research the Eocene Thermal Maximum to see how destructice warming can be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

have a look at the 3rd reason that might have caused the Permian
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/extinction/permcause.html

Ender

I don't think you are simplistic, I think you are brainwashed in religous sort of way.

Joe,
I don't like hippies, I don't like getting back to nature (I don't even like camping), I don't believe in worshipping mother earth and all that rubbish. I'm a technologist at heart, I'm a scientist by training and occupation, and I read 'hard' science fiction in my spare time. I am concerned about the effect of greenhouse emissions because I understand the science of molecules absorbing heat (especially CO2 - anyone who uses IR spectroscopy would). I believe that a cap and trade will be the best solution to reduce emissions because it provides a way for markets and technology to solve the problem without the government interferring and 'picking winners'. If the cost of energy becomes greater then companies will find a way to reduce it's use.

I'm glad the subject of Aluminium smelters - Alcoa has reduced greenhouse gas emissions 25% since 1990 without it going out of business - if Alcoa can do it then why can't other businesses?

Simon

We are on the same boat as far as Global warming is concerned. I think n balance man is causing a good part of the warming. However I wouldn''t bet the ranch on that one becaause at this stage it is a theory a good one but still unproven. As I am nt a scientist I go with what they tell me.

Most respected scientist go by the probability that we will add 1 to 6 degs over the next 100 years. This is hardly the same heat as on the sun. In fact it's quite bonevolent my think goes.

When the earth has spent 90% the last 3 million years under ice, my bet is that warmer is better.
I remind you the word I used- Bet.

Warmer is better. In fact it''s great.

As you are a scientist I suggest we get the terminology about emissions in proper context. It's a tax, pure and simple. The only change is that it is a transferable one. Still it is a tax.

So now we are being taxed for something that is good.

>Warming is a good thing, a great thing. The warmer it is the better for life on earth. Notice one thing. Ever thought to ask why there are about 2500 species of higher form life living in the Amazon River? That is about as many as there are in the South Atlantic combined. It's huge. Could it because higher life thrives in warm weather?

Joe, suggest you go away and do some reading. Many climate change projections now suggest that the Amazon will be consumed by fire by around 2100 as increasing stomatal resistence and higher temperatures lead to an irreversible drying and the replacement of rain forest with fire tollerant woodland.

In case you haven't notice, the hottest places on this earth are deserts. How much life do they support?

David

This came out of Reason 5 years ago. It's pretty illuminating
By Ronald Bailey, Reason Science Correspondent

Since 1977 the value of the U.S. economy has doubled, yet the amount of physical stuff it took to supply all the needs and wants of Americans fell from 1.18 trillion pounds to 1.08 trillion pounds. Even more astonishing: the "weight" of the economy fell while U.S. population grew by some 55 million people.

This is no small matter. Economic growth using less physical resources was not supposed to be possible, according to the infamous 1972 Club of Rome report, The Limits To Growth. That document, still referenced in all sorts of economic and environmentalist debates, saw economic growth as dependent upon ever greater amounts of material resources. The production of those resources, went the argument, would eventually lead to a depleted planet and then a massive population die-off. The report concluded that humanity must accept "a state of global equilibrium" in which there was no economic growth.

David
I don't buy the scare stories. Respected scientists say the earth will warm by 1 to 6 deg by century end. The poles by about 6 deg and the equator by about 7 degs.

This is hardly going to kill of the Amazon. In fact it will lead to more life.

I suggest you stay away from the scaredy cats and listen to the climate scientists who are telling us the the above. I believe them. They are in that line of work.

Sorry should read

The poles by about 6 degs and the equator by about 3.

If you really want to know if something is 'good' or 'bad' ask an insurance company. They make their money from calculating risks - they know that a smoker will die younger therefore increase smokers premiums - so if Swiss Re(one of the worlds largest and conservative re-insurance companies)says this:

"Climate change is probably one of the most important issues facing the insurance industry today. Swiss Re has identified climate change as an important element of our long-term risk management strategy. It has implications across all of our business groups as a risk and an opportunity. Few other factors affect more the bottom line of our clients, insurance companies, than natural catastrophes. We believe that climate change has the potential to affect the number and severity of these natural catastrophes and result in a very significant impact on insurance business. "

and this:

"While the company does not presently plan any restrictions, we are making clients aware that directors and senior managers may in the future be held responsible if their companies fail to manage their carbon liabilities effectively or to comply with emissions regulations."

and this:

"In 2001, Swiss Re followed up its long involvement in climate change research by creating a business unit, called Greenhouse Gas Risk Solutions (GHGRS). This unit, is the result of an holistic feasibility study that assessed where, when and how Swiss Re could and should play a role in facilitating emissions reductions."

Then no, climate change, overall will not be 'good'.

Joe - from the brainwashed:
"In an event marking the start of the Eocene, the planet heated up in one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history, currently being identified as the 'Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum' or the 'Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum' (PETM or IETM). Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years"

If you had bothered to read the reference I provided the Eocene event was a major extinction however the temperature rise was a little as 5° to 8° and this was sufficient to wipe out whole ecosystems. I am not suggesting that this will happen only that what seems like small changes in temperature can lead to much greater effects.

(To get the ° symbol hold alt and type 504)

Phil says

Deserts are hot too.

Phil, if you can't tell the difference between the Gobi and the Amazon, as it seems you can't, I am a loss and open mouthed.

And yet, you make fun of me by calleing me an idiot!

Phil, I am not going to make fun of you or anyting like that. I'll just let you in on a little secret word. It's "water". Mammals and all forms of life need water. The last time I looked deserts have very little.

I didn't even need a science book to look that up.

joe - according to you warm is good so deserts are warm so they should be good. Perhaps there is a fault in your argument and there are other factors as well as warmth that make the Amazon so diverse.

Ender says

"Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years"

Ender, this comment goes in to file beside Phil's.

A 5 to 8 degs increase in air temp is not going to cause the oceans to go up to an equal amount.

you guys are just reciting Tim Flattewry's "book" without even undetstanding what you write.

Again, I am no scientist but your lack of scientific knowleedge is really starting to bother me.

Ender

I'm not stupid and i wouldn't assume others are ether unless proven wrong.

I would have thought a reasonably intelligent person who writes well etc. would be able to distinguish the difference between the Amazon and the Gobi.

I guessed wrong.

Ender
"joe - according to you warm is good so deserts are warm so they should be good. Perhaps there is a fault in your argument and there are other factors as well as warmth that make the Amazon so diverse"

Ender, I am really not trying to stick rakes in front of your pathway, I'm really not.

It seems everytime you say something your hitting your forehead with a rake again. It's daylight, dude!

Again, I am no scientist..... but whenever you have a combination of plentiful available water at the earth's surface ( I think I need to spell surface out to you or you'll come back about desert oasis or something) and warm temps you get an abundance of life forms. I used the Amazon as a good example of this truism.

If Lambert read what you two have being saying on this site he would ban you from his. He doesn't want to be embarrassed by people write such stuff.

Yes Joe - it is about water - and I had to tell you. Give it away before you did a deeper hole. Warm does not always equal better does it.
zzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzz.. ..

joe - "but whenever you have a combination of plentiful available water at the earth's surface"

OK so follow this through. Your premise is that warming is good because the amazon has great diversity and it is warm.

Now you have hit the nail on the head that a COMBINATION of warmth and plentiful water is what makes the Amazon diverse. Your initial premise does not take into account the multiple requirements of diversity. To say that if the world warms this is better because warmth promotes plant growth does not take into account the multiple factors that determine whether a region will support diverse flora and fauna.

No-one can guarantee as the world warms and the climate changes that coupled with the increased warmth will be a corresponding increase in rainfall to support plant growth. Some areas may have their rainfall diminished and though warmer they could be become like a desert. The Amazon is a special place that is supported by warm temperatures and plentiful rainfall not by warmth alone.

Just another rake - the Antarctic ocean supports a fantastic variety of life and it is really cold. There is more to diversity that just warmth.

Joe - instead of shooting wildly at everything that moves - why don't you do some research and serious backgrounding on the subject.

Last year's Greenhouse 2005 conference has just published the Powerpoints of the presentations. Suggest you start with Kevin Hennessy's overview.

http://www.greenhouse2005.com/Program.html

This is pretty close to the current knowledge on the subject.

I have read research, phil. I find, however that it you Ender and yourself who are lacking information.

I am open minded as the the reasons for global warming. If the US Academy of science tells me there is a good chance we have AGW, who am I to disblieve there is a good chance. Notice I didn't say for certin becaue even they don't make that claim. However it's a good chance.

I have gone a little further than that though. I have asked whether AGW is good or bad for us. On balcance it seems it seems it is a good thing as life forms thrive with warm weather in areas where it is plentiful (notice I didn't mention deserts).

Prove against this. IF the tendency of the earth is glaciation then why on earth are we worrying our skirts off when the most prominent, knowleadgable climate scientists say the earth is going to warm about 3 to 6 degs over the next 100 years?

I am surprised you have't yet apologized for being unable to distuish between a tropical rain forrest and the Gobi desert.

Ender you have hit yourself in the head with a rake again.

"the Antarctic ocean supports a fantastic variety of life and it is really cold. There is more to diversity that just warmth".

Now Ender has submerged himself below the surface of the ocean and looking for Krill.

Ender, Next time I put on my safari suit looking to hunt some big plentiful game I'll tell the pilot to heading for Africa to instead head south to the South Pole as I am sure to find some hippos, lions and elephant on that warm conintent. We aren't talking about krill, Ender.

Joe - you still don't get it - your generality is dead man. Sunk by the stern. Now you're copping it amidships. If rainfall patterns change, your warmth might have some problems.

This is why you should read what I've suggested above. Then you can tell me what might happen in our own backyard !

Who said anything about glaciation. I've told you about that before and you didn't listen. Back to Jen's blog climate archives and remind yourself from the references - off you go !

And we're not talking just about krill - we have Antarctic megafauna - seals, sea-lions, various species of whales, various species of penguins, large bird colonies on sub-Antarctic isalnds. Might not be the Serengeti - but it's far from sparse.

And in terms of diversity - some heathlands (I believe WA has examples) are some of the most diverse systems on Earth.

If there was a hippy greenie here arguing for AGW with the same kind of wooden-headed stupidity as Joe, the contrarians would be pointing & yelling "look see, all greenies are hysterical and stupid". Joe makes the contrarian case look ignorant and arrogant to boot. However most of the other contrarians you battle with generally nominate some references for their arguments (by doing so you each get to re-examine your own position, which is good). Joe however is a TWOT (total waste o time)

So why do you guys even bother with time-wasting spaghetti-brained troll joe? Joe is only interested in piece-meal dumb-donkey point-scoring (eg juvenile suggestion that you overlook water's importance! how moronic), he will draw you into endless futile exchanges until you've warn out your keypads. Joe notice that no-one else ever comes to your defence? They're embarrassed to be associated with your lame arguments.

Thinksy

You are a pretentious intellectual twit. If you had bothered to read your sides comments you would have seen
1. Phil can't distinguish between the tropics and a desert.

2 Ender thinks the oceans carry the same temp as the surface atmosphere.

These comments deserve scorn. You, thinksy belong to the same religious cult.

More importantly, if I am a waste of time why waste time reporting on me?

Your kind never seems able to grasp the fact that your sneering attitude is why the average perwson has total contempt for intellectually pretentious twits like you.

Phil
You need to recognize publicly the mistake you made in not being able to distiguish between the Amazon and the desert. If you don't I'll keep repeating until you do.

Stop using the same rakes as Ender. The South Pole would hold a minute fraction of life species as does the south American tropics. The Amazon river holds about 2300 differnt species of fish, far, far more than the entire Atlantic. this is no accident of nature and yet you insist on self inflicting wounds to the front of your head.

Measure like with like if you are comparing apples. Compare numbers of species in south America to the number in the south Pole. Not another rake.

DANGER:
Do not feed the trolls.

Members of the public are warned not to feed the trolls. Do so at your own risk.

joe - so lets read on a bit from the reference that I gave you.

"Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years. In 1990, marine scientists James Kennett and Lowell Stott, both then at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reported analysis of marine sediments showing that, not only had the surface of the Antarctic ocean heated up about 10 degrees at the beginning of the Eocene, but that the entire depth of the ocean had warmed, and its chemistry changed disastrously. There was severely reduced oxygen in deep sea waters, and 30 to 40% of deep sea foraminifera suddenly went extinct. Geologist Jim Zachos of the University of California, Santa Cruz has connected the Eocene heat wave to drastic changes in ocean chemistry that caused the massive worldwide die-off. More recently a synchronous drop in carbon isotope ratios has been identified in many terrestrial environments."

Do I need to say more? Do you need it read to you?

"Next time I put on my safari suit looking to hunt some big plentiful game I'll tell the pilot to heading for Africa to instead head south to the South Pole"

Perhaps you should:
"Home to penguins, seals, whales, fish and birds, but no land based animals larger than a half centimetre long midge, the Antarctic is overwhelmingly associated with its marine environment. Indeed, whilst the Antarctic continent is the driest, coldest and most inhospitable region on Earth, the Southern Ocean teems with life and is one of the planet's most productive and complex marine ecosystems."

http://www.sciencepoles.org/index.php?s=2&rs=home&uid=549&lg=en&fuid=548

You have not even supported your original premise with any references or data. Warmth alone does not guarantee bio-diversity - it takes many factors only one of which is warmth. To avoid yourself being classified as a troll and not being fed, you really need to back up the insults and bluster with a few facts.

Thicksy

The church bells are a ringing. The cult leader is out looking for you.

Ender:
"Ender thinks the oceans carry the same temp as the surface atmosphere".

This what you said. Why are you covering up this silly idea with meaningless babble.

We aren't talking about ceans, Ender. We are comaparing continents. Is it really that hard to understand. An ocean has lot's of salty water. A continent is land above sea level. The two are a little different.

I you look back I haven't started the abuse, but will respond.

Thicksy is a prime example of what I am talking about. Trollng around like she does and spewing out her vile abuse when she disagrees with someone. Thicksy is a prententious sneerer.

So guys would we vote Joe as a mini-troll or mega-troll. Is he as stupid as he makes out - I doubt it - he's on a bet to keep us talking. Thinking about it - this is probably how traders work - yelling and bluff. Perhaps it is normal behaviour. Anyway just humour him - he'll get bored and go back to whittling soon enough.

Ha, Phil, I didn't write this. You did!

Deserts are warm too and don't seem to have near the amount of life as does the Amazon. Have a look where the world's deserts are located - it's usually for climatic reasons. So warm doesn't always = more life.

Phil, you forgot there's no water in the desert and yet you're the one calling me names. This is now getting quite amusing.

Thicksy is sneering. Phil thinks he won't die of thirst in the Gobi and Ender can't tell the difference between an ocean and a continent. And I am the one being abused. It's not funny, it's hysterical.

Faintly, above the ringing of the church bells, I can just make out the death cries of a troll dying of starvation.

Thicksy

Did you write this?

DANGER:
Do not feed the trolls.

Members of the public are warned not to feed the trolls. Do so at your own risk.

If you did you aren't following your own instructions as you keep writing about me. Thicksy you have now joined Phil and Ender in my silly files.

It's in its death throes now.
Trolls always have a last reserve though. They'll lash out, try and provoke people into caring. Just put yr hands over yr ears and keep your eyes on the warning sign. Ding dong the troll is dead.

Let's keep arguing and see if we can get to 100 comments and not say anything. Joe - you didn't say in your intial post that you had to have water. You just said warm and smoke is good, among various metaphysical incantations - something about setting fire to your garden ??. You made a generality. The generality doesn't hold up to analysis. So we're right and you're wrong. No whinging about deserts post hoc. You've had your chance and blew it. You've been done like a dinner mate. Don't come round crying like a little girl (or boy) later.

And you haven't picked up on the fact the most intellectual, scientific and cultural progress has been made in temperate climes so if you're brain is overheated i.e. yours - you don't get to thinking about things discursively and philosophically. So it's scientifically proven then that if the world globally warms you yourself won't be able to think at all given you're overheating at current temperatures. You therefore should be very concerned. How will you make vast quantities of money?

Incidentally some of the Amazon black water swamps are quite ecologically impoverished. So perhaps too much heat, no nutrients and no light isn't that good. Sort of like with financial dealings. Did you say that initially - no you didn't - so we win again. Man this is getting boring. Fish in barrel. (well no fish in this case) :-)

If you like we can argue whether greater ecological diversity is more stable than low dieversity and widen it out. What do you say - want to have a crack at 100 comments?

joe - for gods sake "Phil, you forgot there's no water in the desert and yet you're the one calling me names." YOUR premise is that more warmth will be better because the amazon is warm. We are trying to point out it is not just warmth that makes the amazon verdant but a combination of water and warmth by giving an example of an area that is warm but lacking water.

Please get this point.......

Ender

Why are you speaking for Phil. Ýou don't know if he thinks that because that's not what he said.

Phil says
"Deserts are warm too and don't seem to have near the amount of life as does the Amazon. Have a look where the world's deserts are located - it's usually for climatic reasons. So warm doesn't always = more life".

Ender is now telling us there are other facets to thriving life. Well of ocurse there are, Ender and warmth is one of them, which I have laboriously explained to you numerously.

Yet you go off in angens talking about oceans when I am discussing continents.

So we are agreed now, right? Good conditions for thriving life requires warm weather amongst other things.

However "amongst other things" and cold weather
doesn't quite produce the same result. Agreed?

As a troll, with his silicon based brain, the last thing Joe should argue for is more heating. Well, as long as there's enough wind for the propeller on his cooling-cap to keep his brain chilled enough to think (clearly it's not working):

"Trolls have interesting seams of valuable minerals as their blood vessels and nervous system. This phenomenon has at least two repercussions. One: a troll's brain, silicon-based, will overheat and slow down .. and the troll will become sadly stupid; the brain will also overheat in strong sun, causing trolls to stop moving in daylight. Two: when a troll has stopped moving while his brain has overheated in daylight, this troll will look just like a lump of rock, with interesting seams of valuable minerals, and may be attacked by mining dwarfs."
http://wiki.lspace.org/index.php/Trolls

Thicksy

You're becoming obsessive and a litle scary

My allegiance is with the dwarves.

Joe you haven't answered my points on black water swamps or the development of scientific thought.

Phil
Do us all a favour and apologise for the comment you made.

Also please don't provide links, put the stuff in your own words and explain to us exactly what you are on about.

Thicksy

Easy gal.

"Incidentally some of the Amazon black water swamps are quite ecologically impoverished".

For Christ's sake Phil, I'm talking about a huge region here and you focus on a couple of swamps and think you are proving a point. This is silly.

You remind me of my worst trades. The worst trades are those which you spend a lot of time over-intellectualizing as that hole gets deeper. Unable to see this I dig a deeper hole by letting a loss get too big. Thankfully expreience has taught me to give up the bad ones. I suggest you learn this lesson as well.

Just to let you boys cool off a bit. I am sure the world's temperature has risen a few degrees over the past 48 hours from the robust exchange on this blog!
The analogy between taxi licensing and emission licences and trading is that both represents attempts, via public viz government regulation, to improve the current or expected situation.

Under taxi licensing it is believed that most users would be better off under regulation than without. By attaching condition to the licences re safety, availability of service etc the belief is that more people would benefit than lose from the change.

Of course higher charges for travel will result as taxi owners need to incur extra costs to provide the service.

The big issue of course is how many licences do grant. From the point of safety regulations you could argue that an unlimited number of licences would be acceptable. The issue of availability of service ie enambling a certain number of cabs to be available at all times would demand some restiction in the number of licences. Otherwise you would have plenty of cabs available at the more popular times of the day and the year and a dearth of cabs at others.

So in making the decision as to the number of licences the regulators rely on data to support their decisions. If they get it wrong and have two few licenses then the original lucky taxi license holders make a windfall. If they issue too many licenses then taxi users will suffer from an unreliable service.

Similarly with respect to emission controls. In the absence of controls, the population, as a whole, would be worse off from the effects of AGW. Just as the cab regulators need good information to decide on the number of cab licences, so do the emission regulators to decide on the levell of emission controls.

However there is one fundamental difference between regulating taxis and emissions. For emission controls to be effective all nations, or at least the majority of the large emitting countries have to agree to be regulated.
It doesn't matter to Brisbane cab regulators, users or providers whether or not Sydney or New Zealand regulate their cabs or not. However for effective regulation of carbon emissions it makes one hell of a difference if some large emitters agree to be regulated and other large emitters don't.
Over time you will likely see a migration of heavy carbon using industries to those countries and/or an expansion of these industries in those countries that are not regulated. Such a move could well disadvantage those industries in the countries who agree to be regulated.

Joe,

Suggest you read

"Strong carbon cycle feedbacks in a climate model with interactive
CO2 and sulphate aerosols
Chris D. Jones, Peter M. Cox, Richard L. H. Essery, David L. Roberts,
and Margaret J. Woodage
Hadley Centre, Met Office, Bracknell, UK"

The Hadley Centre is probably the leading climate modelling group on planet earth.

This study predicts a collapse of the Amazon forest after 2050 with around 6C of global warming by 2100 as the biosphere and soil carbons go into "melt-down".

They note... "dieback of the Amazon forest due to regional rainfall decreasing". The decrease relates to increasing stomatal resistence which slows evapotranspiration (a CO2 feedbback - remember that water that enters the basin is recycled around 3 times by evaporation) and a shift of rainfall into the Atlantic Ocean as a result of rapid ocean warming.

David

UNDERSTANDING COMMON CLIMATE CLAIMS

By Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, March 2006

ABSTRACT

The issue of man induced climate change involves not the likelihood of dangerous consequences, but rather their remote possibility. The main areas of widespread agreement (namely that global mean temperature has risen rather irregularly about 0.6C over the past century, that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have increased about 30% over the past century, and that carbon dioxide by virtue of its infrared absorption bands should contribute to warming) do not imply dangerous warming. Indeed, we know that doubling carbon dioxide should lead to a heating of about 3.7 watts per square meter, and that man made greenhouse heating is already about 2.7 watts per square meter. Thus, we have seen less warming than would be predicted by any model showing more than about 0.8 degrees C warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is consistent with independent identifications of negative feedbacks.

Alarming scenarios, on the other hand, are typically produced by models predicting 4 degrees C. After the fact, such models can only be made to simulate the observed warming by including numerous unknown factors which are chosen to cancel most of the warming to the present, while assuming that such cancellation will soon disappear.

Alarm is further promoted by such things as claiming that a warmer world will be stormier even though basic theory, observations, and even model outputs point to the opposite.

With respect to Kyoto, it is generally agreed that Kyoto will do virtually nothing about climate no matter what is assumed. Given that projected increases in carbon dioxide will only add incrementally to the greenhouse warming already present, it seems foolish to speak of avoiding dangerous thresholds. If one is concerned, the approach almost certainly is to maximize adaptability.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060126/20060126_13.pdf

About what you expect fom Lindzen who is pretty well by himself on these issues now.

You could debate the sensitivity issue - why pick one end and not another. Inject some new information on biospheric feedbacks:

http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511161400_2.ppt#388,7,Slide 7

Read the conference proceedings and learn something instead of indulging mavericks.

And it's all been said by others in critique

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=222

sigh .. ..

Sorry the link should have been:

http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511161400_2.ppt

Vulnerabilities of the carbon cycle.
Joseph G. Canadell

Phil

You know what worries me about you. It's that you can't seem to tell the difference between a desert or the tropics and that whenever stuck you get out the links.

Put it in your own words, Phil. Don't give us home work.

A little more on the similarities and differences between the rationale for controlling taxis through licensing and controlling carbon emissions through carbon emission licensing.
Regulators have to decide whether the likely scenario, after the introduction of controls (and allowing for the costs of implementing the controls) is preferred to the likely scenario without the controls. In other words will there be an aggregate gain in socity's welfare. To do this they need information about the the alternate states the "with" and the "without".

In the case of global carbon emission controls the information needs are infinitely greater and more complex(and the effects of "bad" research much greater).
While the questions and topics are different regulators would enquire along the following lines. For the carbon emission regulators;
1.Is the increase in world temperature over the last 60+ years largely the result of human-induced carbon emissions?
2.And without regulation will the situation worsen ie the world gets even hotter?
3.In the absence of controls will profitable technology provide the solution? By profitable I mean carbon emitters will voluntarily invest in the research as they will be better off from application of the research.

4.If it is agreed that indeed warming will increase, what will be its effects on human welfare?
5.How do we quantify these effects?
6.What will be the distribution of these effects? Will some regions/countries/people actually gain some benefits from warmer temperatures and by how much? What regions/countries/people will lose and by how much?
6.If we are satisfied with the projected outcomes in the absence of the controls, then we must model expected outcomes in the presence of different levels of controls ..no mean feat.
7.How do we quantify the benefits from the implementation of these different levels controls?
8. What are the likely costs and their distribution from implementation of controls?
9. Finally how do we then determine the "right" level of emission control?

A lot of the rather heated discussion on this blog seems to relate to points 1,2 and 3.
However I have not seen much discussion or data relating to the subsequent points. I am sure some economic thinktank would have done the massive modelling required to come up with the answers. That is why Phil I asked you earlier if you are familiar with studies estimating the economic returns, including distribution of benefits and costs, from the massive research in global warming and appliction of its findings viz levels of controls etc.

You know what worries me about you Joe is that you were wrong wrong wrong with your first generality of warmer is better - did you say warmer is better under these conditions - NO !!! - and now you're trying to wriggle out of it. You made a generality and you are wrong on at least 4 aspects as discussed above. Say "uncle".

I'm also very concerned that you're not up with the latest Australian research on a whole variety of climate change topics from http://www.greenhouse2005.com/Program.html

You're not briefed mate. Things have moved on.

Includes setting fire to things and smoke too - you'll like that !!

http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511161340_1.zip

Carbon sink/source strength of an Australian savanna and the role of fire.
Jason Beringer

Can I say it better than these guys - no - you want me to plagiarise their work? Read it and weep !

Incidentally what's your skill level with your own forecasts - what's your hit/miss ratio - hope it's better than here.

Thank you, Blair, for extracting this trail from the orfice in which it had been shunted.

The point about the operation of the tax as a trigger for industry moving offshore needs expanding. For the loss is much more than the value of the lost production. The industries most sensitive to a carbon tax (like alumina) are also industries with significant down stream value adding processes that are sensitive to both wages and transport cost changes. And these industries will also follow the prime carbon emitter offshore.

And this means that the country then has to import the fully value added final product with serious implications for the balance of payments and the exchange rate.

So in a nutshell, you can have a carbon tax and a US38cent dollar, or you can have no carbon tax and a US75cent dollar.

Moreover, the drop in the value of the dollar will not bring back the old industry. They are far too big and expensive for that sort of shuffling.

We all need to think about that before we next need to upgrade our PCs, TVs, Cars, Whitegoods and anything else of a substantially imported nature.

>Indeed, we know that doubling carbon dioxide should lead to a heating of about 3.7 watts per square meter, and that man made greenhouse heating is already about 2.7 watts per square meter. Thus, we have seen less warming than would be predicted by any model showing more than about 0.8 degrees C warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is consistent with independent identifications of negative feedbacks.

Dick must have just about choked typing this. It takes decades for the atmosphere/ocean to catch up with a radiative forcing (don't believe in lags, trying going for a beach swim 6 weeks after the winter solstice). We have another ~0.4-0.6C in the pipeline even if CO2 remains fixed. Add this to the observed 0.7C and you have a sensitivity to CO2 doubling of about 2C.

I won't even mention the cooling effects of aerosols.

David

Ref

How Much More Global Warming
and Sea Level Rise?
Gerald A. Meehl,* Warren M. Washington, William D. Collins,
Julie M. Arblaster, Aixue Hu, Lawrence E. Buja,
Warren G. Strand, Haiyan Teng, Science, 307, 1769

Blair - you tell us what the current cost of droughts, storm surge and hurricanes is globally. In terms of human life and economic value. I put it to you that it is already an issue we're not well adapted for:

Some current examples:

Current drought in Somalia: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4801820.stm

Water problems in Australai

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/03/14/australia.warming.ap/index.html

And Ian - you can do whatever you like and the atmosphere will simply integrate the physics (it doesn't know about an economy!).. ..

I have finally got something about how trade relying on GMOS will really help fix Kyoto's Greenhouse problems.

http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/gmo-sugar-cane-on-table-in-brazil-to.html

GMO Pundit

;0)

Re 'And Ian - you can do whatever you like and the atmosphere will simply integrate the physics (it doesn't know about an economy!)' Phil, I take it that your're referring to non-anthropogenic climate change? AGW, by definition, refers to the impact of human-induced emissions on the atmosphere.

Ian - whatever CO2 goes up gets integrated eventually. It's up to us to decide what modifications we may put on our emissions if any. Any economic mechanism is up to "us". The atmosphere doesn't care if we do it or how we do it. It merely responds.

BTW I refer to you to Canadell's presentation above. It's very difficult to make good progress without resolving some of these large potential biospheric feedbacks (IHMO of course).

Phil - I don't think we're in disagreement . You told me earlier that you were reading the McKibbin-Stegman paper �Convergence and per capita carbon emissions�. This was cited in Warwick's paper for ASSA more than twelve months ago, but as yet there's been no response from climate scientists (so far as I know).

M&S found no evidence of convergence of emissions per capita across countries over time, and concluded that �Given this evidence, it is likely that future climate projections that are based on an assumption of convergence of either emissions per capita, emission intensities of energy or energy intensities of GDP are not very useful given they are not based on historical experience.�

As 26 of the 40 SRES projections use convergence assumptions (the A1 and B1 scenarios), that leaves 14 as potentially useful policy purposes (as distinct from hypothetical simulations to test climate models).

Of these, 6 scenarios (the A2 scenarios) assume a world population of over 15 billion by the end of the century. The International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, which produced the population projections concerned, has estimated that there is only a 2.5% probability of the world population in 2100 exceeding 14.4 billion, so the A2 scenarios aren't likely either. (IIASA also estimates that there's a 2.5% probability of global numbers in 2100 being below 4.3 billion. It would be interesting to know what this would mean for emissions, but we're not likely to hear about that from the IPCC).

So it will be very difficult to make good progress, or so it seems to me, until we have some realistic projections of future emissions - perhaps something along the lines of the B2 scenarios projections, but without making the restricting assumption that no measures will be taken on climate change.

I'm not suggesting that nothing can happen in the future that hasn't happened in the past. But it's clearly absurd to make assumptions such as that by 2100 the whole world will use 4-5 times as much electricity per head as the rich countries do today. We should only be assessing potential biospheric feedbacks on the basis of emissions profiles that have a reasonable possibility of being realised.

Ian - yes I think we need (IMHO again)

(1) A likely upper and lower bound from what we know of current best economic theory, global population projections, likely Asian modernisation and moderate technology growth.
(2) A resolution of model sensitivity issues
(3) Better representation of aerosols and clouds in GCMs
(4) Addition of biospheric feedbacks

And a view whether a CO2 sensitive future is a nett cost or opportunity ! (well for a few who see it). We need some sophistication in the approach to achieve a soft landing.

Yes, Phil, agreed. I find the IEA studies the most useful in this respect. They produced a 500 page study on energy investment requirements up to 2030 in 2003, and since then they've produced 2 editions of their World Energy Outlook (these studies also run to over 500 pages) which include projections of emissions to 2030 both for a Reference Scenario and an Alternative Scenario that takes account of policy measures that are likely to be taken in the future.

The assumptions in the latter scenario aren't radical - for example, the proportion of total global energy supply met from wind, solar, geothermal and tide/wave sources in 2030 is projected to be only around 2%. Yet the projected rate of growth of emissions between 2020 and 2030 is only 7% in this scenario, compared with over 30% in some of the IPCC's high emissions scenarios.

What I like about the IEA work is that they are fairly specific about what they are assuming. It suits governments these days to describe measures such as mandatory fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles as 'climate change' measures - in fact, they'd probably be enacted anyway for other reasons such as energy security, reducing urban pollution etc.

The main need is to do as much as possible under the heading of things that make sense whether the globe warms or not. That's the basis of the Indur Goklany approach that I've mentioned several times, and the reasoning seems sound to me.

Phil, as usual you support your dismissal of anything that runs contrary to your wonky ideology with the flimsiest of evidence.

Just because the lady at the Goulburn car wash is having a dry time is not sufficient reason to bring in a carbon tax. Particularly when records show that along with dry spells Goulburn is subject to wet spells,

"Rainfall in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was generally below average (to about 1950), with the exception of some wetter years in the 1920s and 1930s. Since then annual rainfall totals have been more variable. Several wetter-than-normal years around 1950 and 1960 produced a generally wetter period then. A generally drier period around 1980 was followed by some good rainfall years in the late 1980s. Since 1993 conditions have been generally drier than average.

The wettest year on record was 1949 (1183 mm); the driest year was 1896 (346 mm)."

Bureau of Meteorology

Did I say bring in a carbon tax?

I'm simply saying people in Australia and Africa are having a hard time with current climate variability, let alone climate change. Current examples given as a reminder.

Rog - have a look at rainfall trends in eastern Australia on the ye olde BoM trend maps. There is some preliminary modelling evidence that our southern hemisphere rainfall patterns have already changed and greenhouse and ozone are involved. CSIRO's best advice from Greenhouse 2005 (look yourself) seems to be for warmer, drier future in the Murray Darling Basin.

1950s and 1970s a positive period(OK maybe negative - forget the index sign) of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. Few Las Ninas and many Los Ninos since 1976 - we're not sure why. And if you're looking at dryness, the evaporative demand of the 2002 drought was worse than the Federation drought. There's enough to be "somewhat" concerned.

And in terms of wonky - you're not even aware of the level of NSW land clearing outside the cosseted confines of the very pleasant Hunter - take a drive mate !

Almost everywhere you look you read that "increasing demand pressures" are straining water resources. With the greenie led moratorium on dam building it stands to reason that water will continue to be a topical issue for "planners".

Example;

"The ACT Greens believe:

*water resources must be used sustainably, water is a scarce resource in Australia, yet it is poorly valued;

*water management must be a core public service in government hands;

*a total catchment management approach based on cooperation between the ACT and federal, NSW and regional local governments is essential;

*the ACT Government must work to improve the health of the water systems in the ACT as part of our responsibility for enhancement of the health of the Murray-Darling Basin;

*the treatment level of water should be matched to its final use;

*water pricing must encourage water conservation while not placing too great a burden on the already disadvantaged; and

*water demand can be managed to ensure that new dams are not required"

If I read it correctly they want to have their cake and eat it too; they want water to be priced on its true value (at present it is "poorly valued") but not priced to burden the "already disadvantaged" (that is everybody) yet they want to manage the supply of water so that new dams are not needed.

How?

*Did I say bring in a carbon tax?*

That is the subject of the thread, which you have studiously avoided addressing.

Ian - "So it will be very difficult to make good progress, or so it seems to me, until we have some realistic projections of future emissions"

This is almost impossible. However with the release of the world greenhouse gas bulletin (http://www.wmo.int/web/arep/gaw/ghg/ghg-bulletin-en-03-06.pdf) yearly now it should be easier to determine the eventual CO2 level as the increase line is almost straight and showing no sign of decreasing. A straight line projection gives a level of 500ppm by 2050. This represents a doubling of pre-industrial levels. It all comes down then to the climate sensitivity which is almost impossible to determine. James Annan has recently estimated that the most possible climate sensitivity is 3.0° (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html)
so if you use this in your projections you should be not too far wrong.

Well Rog - address it then. I don't have to carry the argument !

I have not "studiously" avoided it - you assert I have - as you wish to put me in a greenie box with your attached checklist.

Anyway - why get uptight - do you think anyone would vote for it or either party would actually introduce it. I don't think the western world and developing world are going to do much about greenhouse emissions at all - but let's not kid ourselves on the science or implications. We need the best climate science advice and to plan for adaptation. (as many good papers at Greenhouse 2005 were about).

You don't necessarily have to link Kyoto and climate change science together. i.e. you might have concerns about climate change but don't think Kyoto is an adequate or fair mechanism to address such changes.

And obviously the comfort and benefits we have in our current standard of life is dependent on coal and oil.

OK update:

Land and Water News give the Labor Party Climate Change position a comment.

http://news.envirocentre.com.au/lawn/article.php?issue=2006-03-16&id=1379&key=0

No Ender, Even if emissions were as high as the B1 scenario (which assumes that there are no climate policies or measures) the emissions concentration is projected to reach 488 ppm in 2050, which is 74% above the pre-industrial level, not double that level - see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/531.htm

But as I explained in my previous posting, emissions under the IEA's alternative scenario, which can be taken as a benchmark, are running well below B1. There are plenty of options for reducing emissions below the IEA benchmark trend - as Phil points out, you don't have to link Kyoto and climate change science together.

I don't understand your straight line projection of concentrations. Didn't you post up estimates which showed that CO2 concentrations had risen by 1.7 ppm on average over the past 10 years? Multiply 1.7 by 46 years to 2050 and you get an increase of about 80 ppm, which puts CO2 concentrations in 2050 in the 460-470 ppm range, not the 540 ppm which you need for a doubling of the pre-industrial level.

I'm not endorsing the 460-470 figure, but just pointing to the consequences of your assumption of a straight-line increase.

The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is accumulating in the Earth’s atmosphere at an ever faster rate, according to new data published this week by the US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The finding has renewed concern that nature’s ability to absorb the gas – which is believed to be warming the atmosphere – may be waning.

NOAA said the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 reached 381 parts per million, an increase of 2.6 ppm since 2004. The annual increase, which has been recorded since the 1950s, has now exceeded 2 ppm for three of the past four years – an unprecedented rate. Half a century ago, the annual increase was less than 1 ppm. Continues .. .. .. ..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8850-atmospheric-cosub2sub-accumulating-faster-than-ever.html

Ha! Phil derides Lindzen but they are essentially in agreement!

L: If one is concerned, the approach almost certainly is to maximize adaptability.
P: We need the best climate science advice and to plan for adaptation

L: With respect to Kyoto, it is generally agreed that Kyoto will do virtually nothing about climate no matter what is assumed.
P: You don't necessarily have to link Kyoto and climate change science together

and so on..

Well 2 points out of 10 maybe.

Phil, Your grasping at straws. The 2.6 ppm increase in 2005 is an increase of 0.68%, which would have to be repeated every year to 2030, with the absolute increases rising, to get close to the IPCC's projections of concentrations in that year under the A1B, A1FI and A2 families of scenarios.

It's well known that these figures jump round from year to year, so it's interesting that 'the finding has renewed concern that nature's ability to absorb the gas may be waning.' What was said last year when the increase was (I think) 1.7 ppm, or 0.45%? Did NOAA (or the "New Scientist") comment that the concerns about nature's ability to absorb the gas had been relieved somewhat?

I'm not asserting that nature's absorption capacity IS being maintained. If you show me figuring that suggests that it isn't (taking the experience of a run of years) I'll agree that the best assessment of the outlook should be modified accordingly. I'm just reacting against what looks suspiciously like 'spin'.

Ian - there is pretty clear evidence that the rate of change is increasing. As the oceans warm as they are unable to absorb as much CO2. This is pretty basic science and is not in doubt. Also as the tundra warms it releases trapped methane and CO2.

I extrapolated the graph possibly not accurately enough however the figure I quoted could easily have error bars of 20ppm. I should have said that a straight line increase would be 500ppm +- 20ppm by 2050. There is no value in saying 488 or 432 as there is value in that increase in precision. The rate of change of emissions is increasing and showing no sign of flattening off so 560ppm is not out of the question which would be double pre industrial levels. Again which figure would you like? Most sensible people plan for the worst case and then hope for the best.

Ender, I agree that 560 ppm is not out of the question, but the CO2 concentration will only reach this level if there is an acceleration in the rate of increase that's been experienced over the past fifteen years. The 'pretty basic science' that is 'not in doubt' was of course taken into account in modelling concentrations in the TAR. It's therefore relevant that the outlook for emissions is for much slower growth than was allowed for in those projections. And don't forget that EVERY ONE of the SRES projections of CH4 concentrations had these continuing to increase for several decades, but they've been virtually stable for 5 years (I realise that they could rise again, but on the other hand they might not).

I don't understand your question 'which figure would you like'? The IPCC is an intergovernmental panel which has been entrusted to make an assessment. That means providing the best possible information on the various possible outcomes, preferably with probabilities attached. Governments understand that uncertainty is involved and they receive the information in the knowlege of that.

In my view it was improper for the IPCC to tell the world of the dire consequences that would ensue if the whole world became several times richer than the richest countries of the world today - but to fail to mention that the people who made these projections thought that this was highly unlikely to happen. And to calculate the emissions that might be produced at end-century by 15 billion - but to fail to mention that it was equally likely (or unlikely) that there'd be only 4 billion.

Excuse me Ender, most prudent investors invest on the main chance with adequate reserves for the next less favourable outcome and with capacity at hand to make full use of the next more favourable outcome. Punters on worst case scenarios usually don't invest at all and, consequently, end up with accumulated profits that are commensurate with the risk they assumed, ie zippo.

There are a number of key technologies that are capable of having a significant impact on emission outcomes and we need to be incorporating the range of probable variations in all of these into the emission scenarios.

The stuff to date do not represent a range of probabilities, they are just a bunch of illustrations of a prevailing perception.

Ian Castles - I am saying that you can pick whatever figure fits with your ideas. The IPCC provided a number of scenerios as the actual outcome is so uncertain. If you want to take the low estimate then go ahead. I would take the middle case myself.
The IPCC despite their qualifications do not have a crystal ball and can only give approximations and likely scenrios. I am sure that you economic modelling is no more precise as the consistant underestimation of the budget surplus testifies to.

Ian Mott - when there is only money at stake then worst case scenerios only involves the loss of money. In potentially life threatening situations like climate change it would be prudent to plan for the worse and hope for the best. Remember a very famous life threatening defect was treated as a money issue with distasterous results (google Ford Pinto)

Ender, I'm not 'taking' the low emissions scenario. I'm pointing out what the advice of expert demographers was. Why do you say that the IPCC 'can only give approximations and likely scenarios', when I've just pointed out to you that the IPCC scenarios are regarded as most unlikely by the experts who prepared them?

You say that 'I would take the middle case myself', but how can you know what the middle case is when the IPCC has only modelled high and 'middle' emissions scenarios, and refuses to provide projections based on low levels of emissions?

Do you really think that the IPCC is justified in modelling the emissions from a global population of 15 billion, but in not modelling and reporting the emissions from a population of 4 billion, even though their own experts say that the latter is equally likely?

Ian - no straws - I was merely pointing out some interesting information. No spin except what you shined it with. Seemed a bit quick on the old denialist button there :-)

Might just be some of that thar dang biospheric feedback kickin' in ? Told you I was worried about it. All early days and isn't it good fun - surprises everywhere. I'm sure the anti sites have it all explained away by now !

As I said before check out: http://www.greenhouse2005.com/downloads/program/GH2005_Presentation_200511161400_2.ppt

Vulnerabilities of the carbon cycle.
Joseph G. Canadell

There might be a whole 400ppm in it.

The rest of the NS article here addresses your points:

The increase is caused by manmade emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which currently adds up to about 7 billion tonnes of carbon per year. But roughly half of those emissions are absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

Researchers believe the year-on-year variability in the build-up of the gas is caused largely by fluctuations in nature’s ability to absorb the emissions.

No El Niño
Until recently the biggest increases in air concentrations of carbon dioxide had always occurred during El Niño years, when tropical vegetation grows less and dried-out rainforests burn uncontrollably either through natural or manmade causes. The largest ever recorded increase, at 2.7 ppm, occurred in the El Niño year of 1998.

But none of the past three years of near-record increases have coincided with an El Niño event. And this is causing alarm.

Peter Cox, an expert on interactions between plants and the atmosphere at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset in the UK, says the recent surge “may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming start to absorb less carbon dioxide”.

The finding follows reports that 2005 was probably the warmest year on record, slightly exceeding the previous record-holder, 1998. And scientists at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, in Boulder, Colorado, reported that Arctic sea ice had failed to reform fully this winter following the record melting during last summer.

And Joe - maaaate - thanks for minding the fort for a while and kept us off the topic. You helped us get over the comments ton. Hope Jen isn't being charged by the gigabyte.

Here's your big chance to get back on topic Phil - carbon tax;

yes?
no?
undecided?

The NS article still looks like spin to me, and it certainly doesn't address my points. I said that last year's increase 'was (I think) 1.7 ppm' (a relatively low figure) and wondered what the NS had said then. Well I still don't know, but now you say that the journal refers to 'the past three years of near-record increases'.

So if I'm right about the 1.7 ppm, the NS doesn't regard 2004 as one of the past three years. Odd.

For all the talk about near-record increases, the total growth in concentrations between 2000 and 2005 was 10.3 ppm, or 2.06 ppm per year. As all six of the SRES illustrative scenarios projected an average increase of between 1.90 ppm and 2.10 ppm for the decade from 2000 to 2010 as a whole, this result is entirely unremarkable. So the 'anti sites' don't have anything to explain, and you should subject your belief that 'thar dang biospheric feedback [is] kickin' in' to Ockham's razor.

Meanwhile, the virtual cessation of the growth in CH4 concentrations IS remarkable, and was not expected by any of the IPCC modelling teams.

I repeat that I have an entirely open mind about this. I'll continue to make up my mind on the basis of evidence - but I'd like all the relevant evidence thanks.

Gee Rog - I don't know - I'm stumped - what do you the issues are - either way - how about a discursive post to inform the lurkers out there ?

Phil: "Hope Jen isn't being charged by the gigabyte."

Only 15c with Amazon S3!! (API)

Pay only for what you use. There is no minimum fee, and no start-up cost.
$0.15 per GB-Month of storage used.
$0.20 per GB of data transferred.http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html/104-4392848-5628703?node=16427261

Phil can't even decide if he is undecided..

"Looks like spin " - now Ian - they have either reported facts or not. Why get so excited? Wait and see.

And Rog: Rog just rags - doesn't contribute. Rog you have the floor to express your considered opinion - I'm all tuckered out from Joe and find myself stumped. Give us a burst Rog.

Ian Castles - "Why do you say that the IPCC 'can only give approximations and likely scenarios', when I've just pointed out to you that the IPCC scenarios are regarded as most unlikely by the experts who prepared them?"

You are in exactly the same boat. You or I have no way of telling what the most likely scenerio is. Ask a thousand experts and you will get a thousand answers. Obviously the scientists involved thought in 2001 that the middle and high scenerios were more likely. You cannot refute this because this may turn out to be that case. Emissions are not completely tied to population as positive feedbacks like melting arctic sea ice, tundra thawing and ocean heating are starting to kick in. We can see these effects from previous warming periods when humans were not around. We know that then the warming could have preceeded the CO2 rises within the accuracy of dating the ice cores. It is pretty clear that without humans a rise in global temperatures kicks in the feedbacks that produce a rise in CO2. Now here we are releasing gigtons of CO2, warming the planet and we are suprised that the rate of CO2 increase is greater that what we expect.

To get back on topic a carbon tax could spur innovation in the aluminium industry to start being more efficient which could follow on in other large electrity comsumers. They could be spent on the sort of measures that might mitigate the rise in CO2 and help with the looming energy problem by changing transport to electric and hybrid cars and trucks.

"a carbon tax could spur innovation.."
And market incentives that encourage innovation can be great for economic growth. Win-win!

"Obviously the scientists involved thought in 2001 that the middle and high scenerios were more likely." Sorry Ender, they didn't. They said that they thought that the high scenarios were unlikely. They were given a direction under the Terms of Reference to ASSUME that the average income of poor countries would converge to that of rich countries. There was no evidence that this would happen, & McKibbin & Stegman have now confirmed this. And as I've explained, the team that prepared the A2 population projections are the very people whose probability analysis shows that these are unlikely. And I've also explained that the rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is NOT greater than was expected - so we are NOT surprised. Finally, I'm not excited Phil, but it's not difficult to see the bias in the NS report.

Bias - ha - they're either reporting correct numbers or they're not. It's pretty basic maths. And no El Nino so if the numbers are high that's even more interesting. I'm not excited - just interested in developments. Ian you seem disturbed?

CO2 Sharp rise in CO2 levels recorded

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/air/co2_record_high_levels_in_the_atmosphere.htm

Tuesday, 14 March 2006

By David Shukman
BBC science correspondent

US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level.

BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) — 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.

The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record — a rise of 2.6ppm.

The figures are seen as a benchmark for climate scientists around the globe.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) has been analysing samples of air taken from all over the world, including America's Rocky Mountains.

The chief carbon dioxide analyst for Noaa says the latest data confirms a worrying trend that recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago.

"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.
Mankind is changing the climate

Professor Sir David King,
UK chief scientific adviser

The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate".

*a carbon tax could spur innovation*

..in tax evasion.

Taxes are costs which reduce profits, how is that innovative?

Phil, You're just confirming my point. The BBC and Sir David King are as entirely predictable as is the New Scientist.

Yes the increase in the CO2 burden in 2005 was one of the highest on record, because yes emissions of CO2 were the highest on record.
But in this millennium growth in total GHGs has been below the peak rates of the 1980s, and below the rates expected in the IPCC's last Assessment Report.

There's more to a balanced report than giving the correct numbers. I was responsible for the content of thousands of press releases while I was head of the ABS, many on matters of considerable political sensitivity. I wasn't accused of bias by either side of politics, but I certainly would have been if I'd indulged in the sort of selective reporting which is so evident in the NS report.

So you'd be expecting that sort of jump in an annual rate with no El Nino?

And it is a matter of political sensitivity either way - what else is incorrect ? - your colleague John Zillman even says emissions are changing the climate. We can't afford a carbon tax as this thread and old dear friend Rog says - sudden climate changes may be possible indeed. The jump is surprising or isn't it? Did they say "the end is nigh". I don't think so.

Ian's alternative press release "errr ummm Ladies and Gentlemen we have this number of 2.6 pm - it's not that big a number - it's not like it's a million of anything. It's about what we expect. But we've told you all now and I wouldn't be worried too much. Carry on"

Rog - enjoyed your comprehensive analysis. Incisive stuff.

But to the point on a potential carbon tax - how really exciting - a whole new tax for the right wing and private enterprise to duck and minimise. Aren't you excited about NOT paying it and finding all those loopholes ?

And think of the scams that can be run - you could come up with a "bottom of the aquifer sequestration" scheme to rival "bottom of the harbour".

I imagine you and Joe are finding it difficult to contain yourselves.

No the jump isn't the least surprising, Phil. You explained why last night: 'Researchers believe the year-on-year variability in the build-up of the gas is caused largely by FLUCTUATIONS in nature's ability to absorb the emissions.' The jump in the growth of concentrations in 2005 follows a fall in the growth the year before.

Perhaps the climate scientists could take a leaf out of the ABS book and provide a trend series? It's not really very difficult.

Ian,

suggest you read the New Scientist article before talking about spin.

The second paragraph in particularly is enlightening. This is not spin, this is world class biophysical scientists providing their best intrepretation of unprecedent observations.

"No El Niño

Until recently the biggest increases in air concentrations of carbon dioxide had always occurred during El Niño years, when tropical vegetation grows less and dried-out rainforests burn uncontrollably either through natural or manmade causes. The largest ever recorded increase, at 2.7 ppm, occurred in the El Niño year of 1998.

But none of the past three years of near-record increases have coincided with an El Niño event. And this is causing alarm."

Of course we know last year was globally the hottest (or nearly so) on record and hot years tend to have an excess of CO2 accumulation. No prizes for guess what caused last year to be hot.

David

Ian - I can only hope the IPCC data are better than the Ag Census data.

David, I've read the article, and the parts you've quoted have already been quoted by Phil. Most readers would interpret the statement 'none of the past three years of near-record increases have coincided with an El Niño event.' to be saying, inter alia, that each of the past three years have seen near-record increases. This is not so, because one of those years was 2004, when the increase was 1.7 ppm or 0.45%.

This just confirms my point that a trend series should be provided. I didn't interpret the statement about fluctuations being caused by nature's ability to absorb emissions to refer ONLY to El Niño. Should I have done so?

The rationale behind a carbon tax/licence is to make it more expensive to "produce" carbon emissions.

Users of the product which gives rise to the carbon emissions will have to pay more for their product as the emission producers raise their prices to allow for their now higher costs of production. Actually I suspect the tax would be shared among producers and consumers with consumers paying the larger share. Higher prices mean less product (and carbon emissions) being produced and a halt or reduction in the rate of global warming.

For new producers, the carbon tax is treated as another cost which must be covered for their profitable production.

Alternatively the carbon emitters may invest in emission research, hopefully come up with emission reducing technology and thus avoid or minimise their carbon tax burdens. But the larger share of the cost of this research will be borne by consumers through higher prices so there will still be some reduction in demand for the product. However one would hope that the technology answer would result in lower increase in product prices.

But either solution still means that the aggregate economic welfare of the current population will be reduced. The whole thing about global warming is that the largest group of beneficies from reductions in carbon emissions will be future generations who will avoid the costs from global warming.

There is no win-win outcome. The welfare of current generations is reduced to (hopefully) avoid an even greater reduction in the welfare of future generations.

ABS: we only have to revisit that delightful discussion over Australia's Official Development Assistance (ODA). Despite mutual agreements between developed nations to increase their ODA as a percentage of GDP incrementally over the past few years, the ABS compared Australia's *latest increased* ODA/GDP % to the *earlier lower* international average from a couple of years earlier and used that dodgy basis to claim that Aust now gives ODA ABOVE the international average. This is not correct.

If they had (apples to apples) compared Australia's current year's ODA to the current international commitments then they'd tell the truth that Australia is NOT giving above the international average (as Ian C claimed and defended). (Alternatively they could have gone back a few more years and admitted that Australia's ODA/GDP ratio is substantially lower than it was previously). But naaaah, they took advantage of moving bases to 'present' (massage) the figures in the rosiest possible light.

It was worrying that when pressed, Ian went to great lengths to throw up all sorts of long-winded diversionary tactics - any attempt to avoid admitting that this selective comparison distorted the truth. If this is any indication.. ..

A cap and trade scheme can be more efficient and more effective (at bringing about mitigating behaviours and innovation) than a tax.

>David, I've read the article, and the parts you've quoted have already been quoted by Phil. Most readers would interpret the statement 'none of the past three years of near-record increases have coincided with an El Niño event.' to be saying, inter alia, that each of the past three years have seen near-record increases. This is not so, because one of those years was 2004, when the increase was 1.7 ppm or 0.45%.

Using the long term data from Mauna Loa (+1.82ppm in the year) the 2004 increase was the 9th highest out of 46.

In the 1960s no years increased by as much.
In the 1970s only the 1972 El Nino saw an increase as large.
In the 1980s only two years centred on an El Nino 1987/98 saw an increase as large.
In the 1990s two years cented on El Ninos saw increases as large (1995/1998)
In the 2000s three years have seen increases as large (two centred on the 2002 El Nino).

In the record only 2005 witnessed a larger increase than 2004 and was not associated with El Nino.

2004 was the second largest non-El Nino increase on record, and until last year the largest.

All data are avaliable at http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm . Do a simple trend analysis and the CO2 growth rate is increasing at 0.3ppm/decade.

David

"Internationally, there are now over
10 fully costed deep-cut studies available
showing that nations can achieve 30 to
60 per cent greenhouse gas emissions by
2040–50, without harming economic
growth significantly."
http://downloads.publish.csiro.au/ecos/ecos_download.cfm?article_id=Ec128p8.pdf&issue_id=128&issue_year=2006

Blair said "There is no win-win outcome. The welfare of current generations is reduced..". Blair is not saying that mitigating GHGs would cause the end of civilisation as we know it, however this is a recurring contrarian theme. eg Someone here this week said it would send us back to the Stone Age. Above, joe says mitigating GHGs would have us living in poverty like Niger.

The same contrarians who belittle what they perceive as idiotic doomsaying the-end-is-nigh nonsense from greenie lunatics proceed to defend their resistence to mitigation efforts on the same end-is-nigh-if-we-do basis.

Hypocrisy. When you only flap your right wing you simply fly in circles.

Blair - haven't you heard of competetion - if the price of greenhouse gas emission becomes more expensive then business that be reduce those costs will be able to reduce their prices attracting more customers. I find it amazing that people who claim to be friends of the business world have such little faith in it's ability to adapt and profit from a lower carbon emission world.

Alcoa has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 1990 while increasing production and without the need to build new plants. The reductions have been achieved while maintaining productivity and effiency - in one US plant greenhouse projects costing $16 million produced annual savings of $6.6 million. New inert anode technology could reduce emissions to 50% of the 1990 levels. If Alcoa can do it, and make a profit, why can't others? If there was an emission tax maybe the incentive would be there.

No SimonC, if there was an emissions tax then the R&D money would be siphoned off to pay the tax. Alcoa achieved a 25% reduction WITHOUT A TAX! How can you seriously use this in an arguement for a tax?

Lets get this clear, R&D is an expense that is funded by profits. Loss making companies have great difficulty finding R&D money because the Directors are required by law to pay the creditors first. If they were to choose to spend on R&D without meeting their obligations to creditors (ie trade while insolvent) they go directly to jail.

Impose a carbon tax and the costs of the company increase, the costs of all competitors also increase, and the consumers respond to the higher price by buying less. So the revenue will only increase by a small amount while costs will go up by almost the amount of the tax.

Exit profits, exit R&D expenditure, exit innovations, exit 25% reductions in emissions.

The addition of a tax is not an incentive for further innovation, unless you are of that school of thought that regards reducing an employees wage as providing an incentive for them to work. All the evidence shows the contrary, that the higher the pay the longer the hours worked.

If alcoa can exceed it's share of the greenhouse reduction targets, without any sign of compulsion or tax, why would you interfere with something that clearly works.

Show me the results of the taxers and the compellers, and if they itch, then by all means scratch them.

Agree Thinksy it 'can be'; the choice of the appropriate instrument(s)to to reduce production of carbon emissions will depend on such factors as cost of administering the instrument eg monitoring costs, collection costs etc ,possible efficiency gains from trading in emission licences and political feasiblity.
A cap and trade scheme would appear suitable for coal users eg coalfired power stations and offer poential gains from trade in the licences. The more efficient power stations would gradually increase their share of total (reduced) power output. The end result would be the required reduction in carbon emissions but using fewer total resources. (although naturally the price of power would still need to increase to reduce power use). In this instance a tax would be a rather blunt instrument.
However I don't think a cap and trade scheme would work too well for petroleum users eg motorists. The administration costs would be horrendous. In this situation a tax or a regulated price may be the better instrument.

For some indusrties an outright ban or limitations on certain activities eg vegetation removal on certain vegetation types may be the only feasible solution.

I suspect the best outcome would be to set enforceable targets for total carbon reductions for particular countries a la Kyoto and then let the countries choose the appropriate mix of instruments to reach their targets.

David, I see that the well-documented submission that the Lavoisier Group has made to the Stern Review says that 'Another fact known to every scientist in this field but omitted from these documents is that temperature responds logarithmically to increments of GHGs. This means that an exponential increase in GHGs is required to sustain a linear temperature rise.'

Do you agree with this view? If so, it is not clear to me why you've quoted only absolute increases in your analysis.

Also, I don't think a politician would do very well if he claimed that Australia achieved a near-record growth rate and then, when quizzed, said there had been only eight years in the past when the growth rate was higher.

I don't understand how you get 0.3 ppm per decade for your 50-year (?) trend, but in any case this isn't how the the ABS trend data on output, employment etc. are designed to assist the use. The purpose is to smooth out fluctuations in the series. Is there any reason why this isn't just as relevant to CO2 concentrations as to time series in economics?

(Satire warning:) SimonC your overly realistic approach ignores the neo-classical assumptions that the rational profit-maximising business is in possession of perfect info and has already taken all possible steps to reduce costs and maximise efficiency and profits. Hence there are no further gains to be made, so even if a GHG emitting business abates to the point where the marginal cost of doing so equals the dollar estimate of marginal damage, the additional taxes can only increase costs, particularly if you assume no real substitutes and ignore potentially disruptive technologies. Of course the lunatic greenie institutional economists might argue that govt interventions can bring about supply curve discontinuities, ie innovations that disrupt that theoretical hoo-ha about constantly diminishing marginal returns, thereby bringing about greater gains for all parties. But then they'd probably also argue that pure economic measures are not the only consideration.

Motty a business will reduce emissions to the point where the marginal abatement cost approaches the tax rate. If they didn't they'd have to answer to angry shareholders why they're pissing money down the drain. You don't think that taxes provide an incentive for innovation? Ask a few tax agents and tax-lawyers how redundant they'd be if flat taxes were introduced.

Ian - these data are precisely measured. You can even see the annual cycles in the CO2 wiggles. It's precision stuff.

We're not talking about dodgy sampled economic data now ! Don't get me started on Australian livestock numbers and other interesting areas in the Ag census and sampling frequency (my medication is barely controlling me).

If the Lavoisier Group made a submission we should examine it with crucifix and garlic in hand.

Anyway - as I said before - don't blow a valve - it's all just very interesting. You don't have to rationalise the numbers out of existence. Let's see what the next few years numbers bring.

Meanwhile it's worth brushing up on those biospheric feedbacks.

Blair - thanks, good post.

Dear Simon C and Ian
I stated previously "Alternatively the carbon emitters may invest in emission research, hopefully come up with emission reducing technology and thus avoid or minimise their carbon tax burdens. But the larger share of the cost of this research will be borne by consumers through higher prices so there will still be some reduction in demand for the product. However one would hope that the technology answer would result in a lower increase in product prices."
So to minimise or avoid the tax, which is levied on a per tonne of carbon basis, the company reduces its amount of carbon production. Less emissions, less tax!

Of course technology offers a solution to reducing carbon emissions. Only a fool would argue otherwise. However relying on the public goodwill of all, or the majority of, emitters to voluntarily reduce their output is asking a bit too much.

To reduce the amount of emissions from motorists do we rely on the goodwill of the motor users? No you bung a tax on petrol and motor users will restrict their miles travelled and pay less tax. Also car manufacturers are inclined to invest in technology to reduce carbon emissions, as they seek to improve or maintain their market share. So the tax on fuel is reduced or in a Utopian state removed as technology has won the day.

But the research costs have to be recovered.As I said earlier there is no win-win solution.

>David, I see that the well-documented submission that the Lavoisier Group has made to the Stern Review says that 'Another fact known to every scientist in this field but omitted from these documents is that temperature responds logarithmically to increments of GHGs. This means that an exponential increase in GHGs is required to sustain a linear temperature rise.'

Prehaps you might point me to the line-by-line radiative modelling including feedbacks and published in the literature which supports such a simple mind interpretation of the the hugely complex area of radiative transfer.

I would not pretend to be able to do the calculations in my head. I will see if I can dig something up.

Finally, it is worth noting that some feedback are themselve exponential in temperature - such as the water vapour feedback.

David

>I don't understand how you get 0.3 ppm per decade for your 50-year (?) trend,

The units should read 0.3ppm/decade^2. It is the growth rate in growth rate of CO2.

David

I'm sorry but any company that doesn't conduct R&D or doesn't try to cut costs by finding efficiencies is doomed anyway - you can't compete in the modern world if don't innovate. I'm pretty ruthless when it comes to businesses - compete or die - if your operations are that marginal that a carbon tax/cap and trade means that the business can't compete then let them go out of business - we're not living in a protectionist/socialist world anymore.

The Alcoa example is an example of how a energy intensive business can cut emissions without losing productivity and without losing out to competitors - introducing a tax will encourage all businesses to follow Alcoa's lead.

Look this whole taxi cab license stuff, used as a credible basis for carbon licensing, is a giant red herring. NZ deregulated their cab license system (with resultant increase in service innovation and cab numbers and a d