Ian Mott: Was Bob refering to the same period, peterd? Has there not been a rise in methane followed by a decline?"
If you care to watch the video again, Ian, what Carter says is clear: "the world atmospheric concentration of methane has been decreasing for about the last 10 years". (I transcribed as I viewed, so one or two may not be exactly right, but this is the sense.) This claim is contradicted by the IPCC source I cited (unless you want to suppose that the methane concentration went into sudden decline beginning in 2005, to fall to values below the 1998 value- only then might it be valid to speak of "decrease in the last 10 years").
As for it being "precious" of me to raise the issue of Carter's carelessness with facts (while he continues to recite the mantra of science being aout "demonstrated fact"- his words, I remind you that none of you have responded to my first- and more serious- criticism above.
Don't worry about it being challenged, Malcolm. It will eventually be meshed in with the tax arena where a whole industry of very competent tax advisors will go over it all and test every possible angle. No other piece of legislation has had the level of court tested scrutiny that has already been applied to the income tax assessment act.
The extraordinary part is that they want forest owners, alone, to pay their emissions tax 40 to 60 years in advance but have not cottoned on to the fact that discounted cash flow is a concept that is very solidly entrenched in legal principle.
What this means is that the present value of a $40/tonne of carbon that will not be emitted for another 50 years is only about $1.00 but the climate bogans seriously seem to believe that the Australian court system will allow them to levy a carbon tax at full value some 50 years before the actual emission takes place.
And they also seem to be under the impression that after paying this tax in full for trees that have been removed, and for stumps that are still there, that any subsequent growth by remaining trees will also be taxable when they are eventually removed. They seriously think the courts will allow them to refuse to give credits for the subsequent growth, that is only possible due to the earlier fully taxed removal, and then pretend that all the later removals are non-anthropogenic and have not grown there since 1990 and can be taxed again and again.
When the big end of town gets a sniff of this in the air they are going to set aside their best and brightest to completely pick it apart. And the team that trashes it first is going to make some gobsmacking consulting bucks while the bureaucrats will have some serious egg on their silly faces. As they so richly deserve.
No Malcolm, it is more the case that we got a lower target rate because the IPCc refused to give us credit for the 90 million tonnes of annual sequestration by our native woodlands.
Reducing deforestation is allowed in the IPCC rules but going through a natural forest and removing trees that are about to start rotting (emitting CO2) and converting that wood into stable carbon locked up in someone's house for the next century is not. According to the intellectual giants at IPCC, all the carbon is emitted at the moment the tree is cut.
Furthermore, when the other trees left in the forest increase their growth rate to occupy the gap left by the removed tree, this increase in sequestration is not counted either, despite the fact of its patently obvious anthropogenic nature.
And in most cases the bosted rate of forest growth will have replaced the removed carbon three or four times before the carbon stored in the house even begins to break down.
So the worlds forest owners and managers who;
1 reduce major sources of natural emissions,
2 convert natural carbon stocks into a form that is more stable and more durable, and
3 transform a slow rate of natural carbon sequestration into a much faster one, and
4 do so in a way that substantially increases the total capacity to store carbon,
Are not only not recognised for what they do, they will also be actively discouraged from doing so under the carbon trading systems. The same applies to any improved carbon storage that may be developed in our newly recognised territorial oceans.
" The IPCC accounting rules do not recognise the possibility that measures could be taken to reduce the level of natural emissions that would achieve the same outcome as a reduction in anthropogenic emissions."
Is this true.? I thought that one of the things Senator Hill as the Environment Minister at the time was able to do was negotiate a lower target rate for Australia on the basis that we would stop the land clearing the Qld etc.
If you are saying that from that point on, there is no ability to accommodate other changes,such as reducing deforestation,or bottling up the methane for dams,etc, then this mob are sillier than anyone could conceivably contemplate.
Was Bob refering to the same period, peterd? Has there not been a rise in methane followed by a decline?
And it is just a touch precious on your part because we are talking about a rise of a whole 42ppb to 1774ppb. That is a 2.4% rise during a period when CO2 went up by 30ppm (8.5%) from 351ppm to 381ppm.
More importantly, we are talking parts per million of CO2 and parts per billion of CH4 when all agree that methane is only 20 times more greenhouse potent than CO2. And this means that the total 42ppb rise in CH4 has had the same impact as 840ppb (0.84 of 1ppm) of CO2. All up, the total change in CH4 has only been equivalent to 2.8% of the total change in CO2. It is much ado about sweet FA.
And on a slight tangent, there is promising technology for harvesting methane from Dams before it is released into the atmosphere. And this technology will be equally applicable to the capture of natural CH4 emissions from lake beds like the African ones that routinely wipe out all surrounding life.
But wait, The IPCC accounting rules do not recognise the possibility that measures could be taken to reduce the level of natural emissions that would achieve the same outcome as a reduction in anthropogenic emissions.
JHansford: "Pandanus67.... If what you say was correct and occurring as you have stated, it would be observable and identifiable as Anthropogenic. We could point to it and say, Eureka.... The fact that it is not there.... Suggests an incomplete knowledge of climate. To say the very least. You would have to concur with Bob Carter's conclusion that after 50 billion dollars there is no definite indication of warming or cooling due to the Anthropogenic effects that we definitely know are introduced. All we have is a continuing natural Warming trend... that in the last ten years has plateaued and cooled slightly. Despite increased Anthropogenic CO2.
It doesn't matter what figures you use... there are no observations that fit the computer models... There is no observations that even suggest Human influence beyond the background noise of Natural variation.... That was Carters Point. You criticize Carter and say he should use bigger numbers... Well their effects would be even more apparent...easier to see... But they ain't there.
To my mind and obviously Bob Carter's. There is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions or have carbon credit schemes or stop ruminants from farting.
J.Hansford: Obviously, you were replying to me and not to Pandanus67.
You do not even attempt to respond to my specific criticism of Carter's manipuluation of numbers, and resort instead to vague generalities like "..there are no observations that fit the computer models...". How do we *know* that there is an AGW? We can be reasonably confident about AGW because the natural causes of temperature change we know about (e.g., solar, volcanic), cannot by themselves account for the observed warming. It's amazing to me that some folk find this concept so difficult to understand. Go out there and model the observed temperature changes of (say) the 20th Century based entirely on the Sun and volcanoes, and then perhaps I'll believe you.
You are correct about incomplete knowledge of climate, but that's hardly profound, and is also true of many other areas of science. We do already know quite a lot.
Luke has set you straight on methane.
Singer is prepared to sell himself to anyone for a dollar.
I am quite happy for Carter to believe what he believes, since he seems to sincerely do so. Singer couldn't lie straight in bed. What bothers me is that someone like Carter is prepared to give someone like Singer the time of day.
[SJT]: "That's what I like about Bob, he speaks so well, he's so reasoned. Too bad he's wrong, but that's by the by."
[sunsettommy]: Slurs and unsupported claims are poor conversation makers.
sunsettommy: I have pointed out above where Carter is wrong. He also claimed in that interview that methane is decreasing. This, I believe, is incorrect. IPCC FAR: methane increased from 1732 ppb in the early 1990s to 1774 ppb in 2005.
Ian Mott: Was Bob refering to the same period, peterd? Has there not been a rise in methane followed by a decline?"
If you care to watch the video again, Ian, what Carter says is clear: "the world atmospheric concentration of methane has been decreasing for about the last 10 years". (I transcribed as I viewed, so one or two may not be exactly right, but this is the sense.) This claim is contradicted by the IPCC source I cited (unless you want to suppose that the methane concentration went into sudden decline beginning in 2005, to fall to values below the 1998 value- only then might it be valid to speak of "decrease in the last 10 years").
As for it being "precious" of me to raise the issue of Carter's carelessness with facts (while he continues to recite the mantra of science being aout "demonstrated fact"- his words, I remind you that none of you have responded to my first- and more serious- criticism above.
Don't worry about it being challenged, Malcolm. It will eventually be meshed in with the tax arena where a whole industry of very competent tax advisors will go over it all and test every possible angle. No other piece of legislation has had the level of court tested scrutiny that has already been applied to the income tax assessment act.
The extraordinary part is that they want forest owners, alone, to pay their emissions tax 40 to 60 years in advance but have not cottoned on to the fact that discounted cash flow is a concept that is very solidly entrenched in legal principle.
What this means is that the present value of a $40/tonne of carbon that will not be emitted for another 50 years is only about $1.00 but the climate bogans seriously seem to believe that the Australian court system will allow them to levy a carbon tax at full value some 50 years before the actual emission takes place.
And they also seem to be under the impression that after paying this tax in full for trees that have been removed, and for stumps that are still there, that any subsequent growth by remaining trees will also be taxable when they are eventually removed. They seriously think the courts will allow them to refuse to give credits for the subsequent growth, that is only possible due to the earlier fully taxed removal, and then pretend that all the later removals are non-anthropogenic and have not grown there since 1990 and can be taxed again and again.
When the big end of town gets a sniff of this in the air they are going to set aside their best and brightest to completely pick it apart. And the team that trashes it first is going to make some gobsmacking consulting bucks while the bureaucrats will have some serious egg on their silly faces. As they so richly deserve.
Thanks Ian,
The AGW fraternity ARE stupider than it could be concievably be imagined, aided and abetted by a compliant media (with only a few notable exceptions).
I shall read your landholders submission over the week end, but this idiot arrangement cannot be allowed to stand without exposure of some form.
No Malcolm, it is more the case that we got a lower target rate because the IPCc refused to give us credit for the 90 million tonnes of annual sequestration by our native woodlands.
Reducing deforestation is allowed in the IPCC rules but going through a natural forest and removing trees that are about to start rotting (emitting CO2) and converting that wood into stable carbon locked up in someone's house for the next century is not. According to the intellectual giants at IPCC, all the carbon is emitted at the moment the tree is cut.
Furthermore, when the other trees left in the forest increase their growth rate to occupy the gap left by the removed tree, this increase in sequestration is not counted either, despite the fact of its patently obvious anthropogenic nature.
And in most cases the bosted rate of forest growth will have replaced the removed carbon three or four times before the carbon stored in the house even begins to break down.
So the worlds forest owners and managers who;
1 reduce major sources of natural emissions,
2 convert natural carbon stocks into a form that is more stable and more durable, and
3 transform a slow rate of natural carbon sequestration into a much faster one, and
4 do so in a way that substantially increases the total capacity to store carbon,
Are not only not recognised for what they do, they will also be actively discouraged from doing so under the carbon trading systems. The same applies to any improved carbon storage that may be developed in our newly recognised territorial oceans.
See Landholders Submission on Carbon Trading 11/04/2007) at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/
Ian,
" The IPCC accounting rules do not recognise the possibility that measures could be taken to reduce the level of natural emissions that would achieve the same outcome as a reduction in anthropogenic emissions."
Is this true.? I thought that one of the things Senator Hill as the Environment Minister at the time was able to do was negotiate a lower target rate for Australia on the basis that we would stop the land clearing the Qld etc.
If you are saying that from that point on, there is no ability to accommodate other changes,such as reducing deforestation,or bottling up the methane for dams,etc, then this mob are sillier than anyone could conceivably contemplate.
Was Bob refering to the same period, peterd? Has there not been a rise in methane followed by a decline?
And it is just a touch precious on your part because we are talking about a rise of a whole 42ppb to 1774ppb. That is a 2.4% rise during a period when CO2 went up by 30ppm (8.5%) from 351ppm to 381ppm.
More importantly, we are talking parts per million of CO2 and parts per billion of CH4 when all agree that methane is only 20 times more greenhouse potent than CO2. And this means that the total 42ppb rise in CH4 has had the same impact as 840ppb (0.84 of 1ppm) of CO2. All up, the total change in CH4 has only been equivalent to 2.8% of the total change in CO2. It is much ado about sweet FA.
And on a slight tangent, there is promising technology for harvesting methane from Dams before it is released into the atmosphere. And this technology will be equally applicable to the capture of natural CH4 emissions from lake beds like the African ones that routinely wipe out all surrounding life.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/05/17/damn-dam-methane/
But wait, The IPCC accounting rules do not recognise the possibility that measures could be taken to reduce the level of natural emissions that would achieve the same outcome as a reduction in anthropogenic emissions.
JHansford: "Pandanus67.... If what you say was correct and occurring as you have stated, it would be observable and identifiable as Anthropogenic. We could point to it and say, Eureka.... The fact that it is not there.... Suggests an incomplete knowledge of climate. To say the very least. You would have to concur with Bob Carter's conclusion that after 50 billion dollars there is no definite indication of warming or cooling due to the Anthropogenic effects that we definitely know are introduced. All we have is a continuing natural Warming trend... that in the last ten years has plateaued and cooled slightly. Despite increased Anthropogenic CO2.
It doesn't matter what figures you use... there are no observations that fit the computer models... There is no observations that even suggest Human influence beyond the background noise of Natural variation.... That was Carters Point. You criticize Carter and say he should use bigger numbers... Well their effects would be even more apparent...easier to see... But they ain't there.
To my mind and obviously Bob Carter's. There is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions or have carbon credit schemes or stop ruminants from farting.
J.Hansford: Obviously, you were replying to me and not to Pandanus67.
You do not even attempt to respond to my specific criticism of Carter's manipuluation of numbers, and resort instead to vague generalities like "..there are no observations that fit the computer models...". How do we *know* that there is an AGW? We can be reasonably confident about AGW because the natural causes of temperature change we know about (e.g., solar, volcanic), cannot by themselves account for the observed warming. It's amazing to me that some folk find this concept so difficult to understand. Go out there and model the observed temperature changes of (say) the 20th Century based entirely on the Sun and volcanoes, and then perhaps I'll believe you.
You are correct about incomplete knowledge of climate, but that's hardly profound, and is also true of many other areas of science. We do already know quite a lot.
Luke has set you straight on methane.
Carter is wrong, as I said.
Singer is prepared to sell himself to anyone for a dollar.
I am quite happy for Carter to believe what he believes, since he seems to sincerely do so. Singer couldn't lie straight in bed. What bothers me is that someone like Carter is prepared to give someone like Singer the time of day.
[SJT]: "That's what I like about Bob, he speaks so well, he's so reasoned. Too bad he's wrong, but that's by the by."
[sunsettommy]: Slurs and unsupported claims are poor conversation makers.
sunsettommy: I have pointed out above where Carter is wrong. He also claimed in that interview that methane is decreasing. This, I believe, is incorrect. IPCC FAR: methane increased from 1732 ppb in the early 1990s to 1774 ppb in 2005.