The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Why Rudd’s CPRS should be voted down
|
The Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme should be rejected by the Senate. It is structurally flawed and unlikely to drive Australia’s transition to a low carbon economy. True, it will provide billions in handouts to our biggest polluters, in effect giving them a competitive advantage over industries and businesses with low emissions. It is based on targets that accept a significant and highly-damaging rise in global temperatures. It is accompanied by a risible scheme to con the community into thinking they can play a direct role in reducing emissions. But each of those factors, on their own, is not sufficient to reject the significant step of establishing a framework that aims to reduce our emissions over the long term — a step that, for 12 years under the Coalition, Australia refused to take. Those factors are reasons to dislike the scheme and criticise those who have formulated it, but not to reject it. Instead, the CPRS should be rejected for the simple reason that the compensation provided to big polluters will never be removed, preventing the scheme from ever functioning effectively. First, on compensation: by giving our biggest polluters nearly all of their permits for free, while requiring industries with lower emissions to pay the full cost of their emissions, the scheme in effect privileges big polluters. It continues the carbon protectionism built into our existing economy, under which sectors can externalise the long-term costs of their activity to the rest of the planet. Moreover, they directly undermine the purpose of the scheme in a way that other forms of compensation — say, the same value of permits delivered as a tax rebate — would not. However, compensation arrangements are only intended to be temporary. They will only apply to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries (except coal mining, which has been singled out for the full emissions trading treatment), and ostensibly only until an international agreement comes into force that removes the problem of Australia’s polluters competing with foreign polluters who face no charges for their emissions. The point is both to protect Australian jobs and prevent “carbon leakage”. Carbon leakage is an economic argument without, as yet, a skerrick of evidence that it will ever occur. It assumes minimal relocation costs, that there are no exchange rate fluctuations and that companies can be confident the jurisdictions to which they are moving will not impose their own carbon abatement measures or present other forms of sovereign risk. In fact even the most apocalyptic modelling from rentseeking bodies such as the Minerals Council of Australia acknowledges continued growth in affected sectors, with jobs “leakage” occurring from future growth, not from existing employment. It also ignores the lower costs and first-mover advantages of commencing a transition to a low-carbon economy as soon as possible, which may eventually be far greater than initial costs. Further, experience with other emissions trading schemes such as the US Acid Rain Program, and other major economic reforms such as the GST, suggests the costs of major reforms tend to be overstated in advance of implementation. Nevertheless, temporary protection until an international agreement comes into operation can justified on the basis that, if there is no international agreement, it matters little what Australia does or how it compensates its polluters; the planet will cook, and we’ll be among the first to feel it. And governments routinely make similar decisions to benefit some sectors at the expense of others. Australia’s unviable car industry continues to be protected by punitive tariffs on foreign-made vehicles are gifted billions in handouts from taxpayers. Cheaper, better, foreign ethanol is similarly subjected to punitive tariffs while motorists in some states are compelled to buy the version produced by local agribusiness companies. In fact the Australian economy is rife with oligopolies and rorts that governments have permitted to flourish, at the expense of consumers. A few billion in CPRS handouts to transnational companies, however outrageous, won’t make a great deal of difference in the scheme of things. On targets, the chances of there being an international agreement on a more ambitious objective than that on which the Government has based its 25% commitment is remote. In the event one is reached, the Rudd Government will come under significant international pressure to increase its target beyond 25%, which will in any event be a solid start in the long-term project of moving to a low-carbon economy. In short, 5-25% is not good enough, but it’s not a reason to reject the scheme entirely. As for the Carbon Trust, intended to enable householders to contribute directly to reducing emissions by establishing a vehicle to purchase and retire permits, while that demonstrates the lengths to which this Government will go to spin its way out of a problem, it doesn’t bear directly on the scheme itself. The threshold issue for the scheme is whether it will work. If it will work, than the handouts to rentseekers, the poor targets and the Carbon Trust figleaf, are of secondary importance. But the CPRS won’t work. The problem lies in the mechanism to end compensation. Under the legislation and regulations establishing the Scheme, an independent panel will review compensation arrangements, and the status of international agreements that may remove the need for them, in 2014 and every five years thereafter. Alternatively, the Climate Change Minister can order a review. The independent panel — appointed by the Minister — will report back to the Minister, but a decision about whether to remove compensation will be one for Government. Normally the principle of electoral accountability suggests that it is elected officials who should make key economic decisions, rather than unelected officials, who do not have to answer to voters for the consequences of their actions. In this case, however, based on what has occurred over the last 12 months, as rentseekers have convinced politicians to extend them more and more largesse, does anyone seriously think that major party politicians can be trusted with the task of deciding to withdraw that largesse? Particularly as that largesse will have grown into the tens of billions of dollars by late next decade, as big-polluting industries expand and soak up more and more free permits. Particularly when most of the recipients are generous donors to the major political parties. You know what will happen. More garbage modelling will be produced by Big Carbon showing the need for continued compensation. News Ltd will run stories about rorting in other countries’ trading schemes and argue Australia should not “go it alone”. Thousands of jobs will be threatened. Ministers will get nervous, with an eye on the next election, and figure a more detailed review is needed, or put the decision off for several years. The decision will also be one for the Parliament, because it will require the amendment of regulations that require the CPRS establishing body to provide permits to eligible EITEs on application according to the relevant formula. A recalcitrant Senate could disallow the regulation amendment removing compensation for EITEs, should a Government decide to take the bold step of doing that. Moreover, the Government has made it clear that any such decision would not commence for at least five years, to provide certainty for business. This is not entrenched in regulation or legislation, but the independent committee is required to have regard to the need for a five-year wait. Meaning, in the event an international agreement was struck to commence a global emissions trading scheme in, say, 2015, there would be no review of compensation arrangements until 2019 unless the relevant Minister decides not to wait until the next five year review was due — and then, should there be a Government decision to remove compensation, a five year wait. Under the most optimistic scenario, Australia’s biggest polluters will be protected most of the way til 2020. And that assumes our politicians ever find the nerve to end compensation. The CPRS will not ever function effectively without the removal of the five-year compensation overhang and the shift of responsibility for ending compensation from Parliament to an independent body such as the Productivity Commission. Based on their form so far, our politicians cannot be relied on to ever flick the switch to a fully-effective emissions trading scheme, regardless of what happens internationally. Passage of the CPRS bill will protect and entrench in the economy the very carbon pollution the scheme purports to address. It will establish a framework skewed massively in favour of Australia’s current, high-carbon economy — overseen by politicians too scared, and too well-rewarded, to challenge those who benefit most from our current carbon addiction. The only sensible vote from any perspective is “No”. |
|
|
41 Comments
The fundamental reality of the CPRS is that it will do SFA to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country because the government has told a giant lie. All significant emitters of carbon dioxide are to be given free get out of jail cards in the form of free permits, and any shortfall in proposed targets will be met by purchasing permits from overseas, presumably from Third World countries where governance processes are virtually non-existent. Consequently fraud will be the order of the day and the benefits to shonky dealers and corrupt politicians will lead to a bigger load of corrupt activity than the recent sub-prime crisis.
Any serious attempt to reduce carbon dioxide output would tax carbon usage at source, and introduce this cost into the supply chain. Market forces would then determine a new equilibrium position. What the lying politicians will not tell you is that any such activity will cut into their support base of unions, businessmen and consumers. Accordingly the spin doctoring will go on, with no serious attempt to implement carbon reduction, because the inevitable outcome would be a significant fall in our standard of living. To reduce consumption of carbon-based fuel prices must rise. The CPRS avoids this undesirable outcome whilst promoting the illusion of activity.
In relation to the political spin doctoring and rhetoric in the run-up to the last election, the unfortunate truth is that the necessary reduction in consumption as a consequence of a reduction in carbon consumption was never explained to the Australian people. Having sold a lie the government must continue to peddle the same crap. The opposition by contrast is no better. Until the Australian electorate realises that the unfortunate consequence of carbon emission reduction is a fall in its standard of living, neither side of politics will reflect this outcome in effective policy. Until this realisation occurs, we will continue to see the devious jockeying for position by politicians of all persuasions (with the possible exception of the Greens), before an indifferent and largely uneducated Australian population which does not understand the reality of the situation.
Finally some sense is coming in to the debate. The blame game had to stop, and the realities faced. A most incisive article BK - in fact excellent!
What I just cannot understand is this Govt’s refusal to split the issues into two bills, one of which would pass on the voices, while this crazy CPRS could wither on the vine. The RET bill is necessary and could proceed to bring certainty to at least one sector of the industry. It is unquestionably cynical politics which Penny Wong just cannot justify if she is serious about the ssues and the solutions
Bernard Keane has agan analysed the situation correctly, politically. Scientifically, the argument is that the Earth needs a plan for rapid carbon emissions reduction to ake effect immediately (no later than 2010) and to produce real reductions of at least 40% by 2020. Even then, Jim Hansen and others have mde it clear that the science predicts a significant chance that tipping points relating to climate and effects relating to ocean current changes, ice melting, glaciers retreating, etc will produce unstoppable sea level rise and freshwater shortages in populous places. The first requirement of any scheme is: will it reduce carbon emissions? Then the task is to make it politically acceptable not the other way round.
BERNARDK A fine piece of informative prose indeed. and as GREG ANGELO’s primal scream “before an indifferent and largely uneducated Australian population which does not understand the reality of the situation.” echos in my ear I am in complete agreement.
I do believe there is a lot of good will, angst, deep concern and plain despair by an electorate which is becoming educated. However, the Blucher Boot Syndrome are the ones who are impossible to convert to reason. And it is just this audience which the nay-declaiming Andrew Bolt lays effective siege to. Then look at the man who employs him to write his garbage. And with friends like these the big polluters haven’t got a thing to worry about.
Sorry, I feel depressed about the whole thing.
Short of the Green’s winning a majority in the House of Reps and Senate I could never envisage a CPRS that would meet Bernard’s high standards….. As such an outcome is highly improbable, if the legislation goes down, we are left with a stalemate…..A flawed scheme must be preferable to nothing at all…..Sometimes you just have to trust the politicians and put your faith in the democratic process…..As the climate science advances, as public opinion shifts with it, one can only hope that politicians step up to mark, adjusting upwards the cost of emissions, at the same time scaling down the handouts to the “rent seekers.”…..I think it incumbent upon those trashing what is on offer, to come with what they consider an ideal scheme, that would survive the gauntlet of opposition in the Senate.
Sadly until our politicians move from denial, (in its various forms, including this nonsense of a CPRS) to despair about the effects of climate change, nothing worthwhile will be done.
Much better that this rubbish be voted down than it should become an entrenched excuse for rewarding polluters.
Excuse me but carbon per se is not a ‘pollutant’ but is a benign element from which diamonds can be made. Where do you get that idea from. I suppose you mean ‘carbon dioxide’ a trace atmospheric constituent with negligible impact on temperature (let alone climate) at present and higher levels. On this basis the entire premise for the so called ‘CPRS’ is fundamentally flawed, syn. incorrect. No doubt as climate science advances this shall become increasingly apparent.
Good on you Stuart. “They call it ‘pollution’ - we call it ‘air’.”
Oh come on Stuart and Bernard. You are writing like ‘reasoning’ individuals not encumbered by consensus views.
Scrap all carbon emissions schemes.
Actually… considering the popularity of stupidity… this will be hard to do.
I vote we first get all severe green activists to turn off their ‘carbon burning’ laptops/desktops now and to never turn them on again. They must also never use electricity again nor wear clothing or gain entertainment that is derived from anything that has carbon in it to show their stolid support for vapid irony grafted on to their personalities as personal conviction.
I promise to turn off my laptop for as long as semi-comatose can hold his breath underwater.
My gills are already working. So flick that switch now please.
Venise you saved my finger tapping, how dare you take my thoughts and expound them so fluently
Mind you I fear you were too kind to that imigrant, I USE HANDOUTS, LIKE MY FRIEND PIERS DOES, Bolt. That excuse for a jurno will require his ass to be on fire before he accepts global warming. Mind you the way Ruperts stocks are these days, News Ltd requiring payment for access to the loony writings of doo doo and doo daa, Bolt and Akerman will be a wonderful indication of just how loyal the deciples of their liberal Gospels are. My bet is not much,when it means hitting the ole back kick.
My hi-fi helps my garden grow and my pc helps informed debate. How do the ‘deep green’ cease exhaling carbon dioxide; given that it is so poisonous?
Bravo Stuart! informed debate will always be more ‘radical’ than uninformed consensus religion.
Gore’s next trick… walking on water ….oooohhhh ahhhhh!
@Semi-Comatose: Good 2nd post, I did smile.
You are right in that we will have to make adaptations, even if I rather doubt that we have either the time or the need to grow gills. There are and will be more pressing problems.
@Stuart: Whether climate change is good or bad for your garden rather depends on: how heat tolerant your plants are; how drought tolerant they are; and (if you are near enough to the sea) how well they cope with salt water.
Wow, this debate degenerated quickly.
What i think would be a better solution than carbon trading is investing in a huge green manufacturing sector to make the latest and best green technologies and export them within our asian region, it would do a lot more in the short term to help the climate in our region, it would also help our economy and give some of our asian neighbours who are struggling with their own ability to produce effective cheap energy to access our products. Our advantage within our region is having access to a highly skilled and technologically advanced workforce…..why dont we make the most of it.
RAYMOND CHURCH: Shucks.
EVAN BEAVER: You are right, of course.
STUART MOORE: I’m prepared to show you exactly how to deal with this problem, Stuart.
Why CHOSE LIFE OVER A SEMI-COMATOSE EXISTENCE? You don’t appear to be prepared to make life better for anyone, except the Blucher Boot Syndrome of course.
I am not happy with the CPRS as it is.
However a further watered down agreement between the Govt and the Opposition would be even worse.
Not a great situation but if the greens had the numbers I think they should vote for a half baked system rather than an even weaker system.
Will it be easier in time to pass an even better scheme?
Re. linked bills - I think/hope the Govt will back down and let them be split, after having cause damage to the opposition.
Venise,
Thanks for twisting my opinions. Lucky I am a GW infidel and this matters little to me.
Take a walk in my blucher boot.
The focused reasoning in the climate change camps is more like hymns in a choir rather than anything science based. Consensus wins over all… even truth.
I am all for sustainable living except when its based on farce that will only hurt us more and send us backwards. Remember you exhale C02. If that is an issue to you then maybe breathe less. If you realized the amount of C02 that humans produce is less than 1% upon this planet you might also conclude that it isn’t an issue except in dogma ridden mythology that is currently used for debate.
We have just had the coldest winters on record in ten years across the USA in over 30 states. Does that trigger any reasoning? Curiously I know it won’t as there is a lot to say for television/media hypnosis on issues.
Choose Life, your grasp of the science is not terrific is it? Where in the Global Warming Hypothesis does it state “all temperatures, everywhere, will go up. No questions”?
This is, and always has been a risk mitigation exercise. More carbon based molecules (there’s more to it than just CO2) in the atmosphere increases the heat holding capacity of the atmosphere. This is indisputable, based on science established in the late 1800s and never successfully refuted since.
Okay, so humans produce only 1% of global emissions. Does that mean that increasing them will have no affect? Of course not. Humans probably produce much less than 1% of the uranium on the planet, and the scope for carnage there is awesome and terrible. Do you question the ability of uranium to do damage to health?
The increase in atmospheric heat capacity is a ‘forcing’. Do some reading on multi-variable non-linear systems (chaos science) and try to get your head around the difficulties in establishing exactly what will happen. The fact that the US has been colder proves nothing; more accurately, it disproves nothing. Some models make that a reasonable outcome, as increased NHemisphere melting leads to changes in the Gulf Stream, which slows onshore heat transfer in the US.
Do some reading on the Dunning Krugereffect also.
The problem with the 1% argument, if it is only 1%, is that 1% + 1% +1% adds up to quite a lot. For the 99% (or whatever it is) we don’t produce, there is something consuming it. But for the 1% we produce, there isn’t. So it accumulates.
@Evan Beaver: re Posted Tuesday, 11 August 2009 at 11:27 am
Yes, I probably didn’t help.
@Self
Remember: Don’t feed the troll.
Evan,
Lets firstly cap the volcanoes… as they produce a hell of a lot more C02 than all of us and our industries combined. I agree rationalizing industry so its less pollutive is a sane thing to do. Taxing people for existing is not and this is my point. Its the little people that suffer in all of this thanks to taxes pushed as being ‘green’ issues.
All the models used to date are computer models of weather and environment and as such are only models. Nothing is proven. Should policy be made upon emotional decisions from such data?
I think not personally… but then again… I am clearly the troll for not agreeing with the consensus.
Burn me at the stake.
I don’t think of The Troll as the person posting, but as the negative part of the post.
For example, you wrote “models … are only models. Nothing is proven. Should policy be made upon emotional decisions from such data?” That’s a good and sensible question that can be discussed.
You also wrote “Lets firstly cap the volcanoes”. I don’t know why you wrote that. How do I respond to that without lowering the tone of the conversation? I don’t know if it’s a joke, or an insult. I doubt it’s a serious suggestion, but I’ve seen people seriously suggest stranger things. (Shadecloth, anyone?)
Your third paragraph is potentially useful. It led to this posting. Your fourth paragraph could have led to a completely different response.
My message was a reminder to me to respond to, in this case, the content of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, and to ignore the 1st and 4th.
There have already been other responses to the question “why does a small change in input lead to a large change in outcome.” Another way to answer the question is with an example: ask yourself “what change in profit does a 10% change in price lead to?”. It’s unanswerable, without more information. Given a profit margin of 50%, a 10% change in price doesn’t make a lot of difference. Given a profit margin of 5%, a 10% change in price will make a big difference. And that’s before you get into feedback loop. If the change in price causes a change in buyer behaviour, who knows what the outcome will be.
As for “they’re just models”, yes, we don’t know exactly. But, they’re the best models we have. What they say is will happen is likely to happen. If the weatherman says “it’s going to rain”, sometimes it doesn’t. But often it does. There is a chance that reality won’t be as bad as the models say. There is a chance that it will be worse. So far, it has been worse.
No Choose Life, I don’t want to burn you at the stake. I’d really like to educate you though; problem is, a lot of the people I’ve had this discussion with don’t appear to want to be educated, or seem incapable of being so. Not sure which camp you fall into just yet.
As Ben said, your volcanoes comment almost touches on a point, which I’ll try and expand. Yes, volcanoes pump out a lot of CO2 (and other GHGases. Don’t forget there’s a lot more to it than just CO2). But there are other things, trees, the ocean that suck in a lot of CO2 also. These are part of the natural cycle that’s been wobbling back and forth over the milennia. As Co2 concentrations wobbled up, tree growth incresed, algae growth, all sorts of things. The feedback goes back and forth and some sort of chaotic equilibrium is reached.
One of the damping mechanisms is storing excess carbon compounds as coal and oil. Plants build up, reach a critical level, some geological time passes and there are your fossil fuels. Problem is, we’re digging these up and burning them as fast as we can. So the normal system continues, plus the additional load of our energy emissions. This is why biofuels are considered less of a problem; their time from storage to emission is much shorter, while coal is (say, I’m guessing) 200m years. Can you see that this buggers the cycle severely? Hence the concern about our own emissions.
If you genuinely want to know the answers to these quesitons, start with the recent IPCC synthesis report. Here’s a link http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf
It covers very well the science and how uncertainty is treated. Also, in response to your point about modelling, they’ve been studying this for long enough now that there are observable changes. Chapter 1 includes many references of actual observations that the climate is getting warmer. And like Ben said, it’s happening faster than they predicted.
EVAN BEAVER: Congratulations for a lucid and excellent comment.
Ok,
So evidence holds no water?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuOnvlleiGY
Are you seriously challenging the IPCC’s report with a youtube video?
Evidence is important. Quality of evidence more so.
All of the information contained there has been disproven time and again.
I repeat from another thread. The science is not for debate. It’s not how science is done. Some talking heads on CNN are not science. Science is peer-reviewed articles with a method and results that can be challenged and analysed. As it stands, there are thousands of papers containing observations and disputable methods that support the the greenhouse theory. You can’t overturn that with rhetoric and panel shows on CNN.
In any case, some of the evidence they used to prove that the globe is not warming is that fixing it will cost too much. Ergh, that doesn’t make sense.
Dr. Leonard Weinstein worked 45 years at the NASA Langley Research Center, finishing his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Dr. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace. He is now a critic of the anthropogenic theory of global warming. His analysis shows that man has contributed less than 0.30C of warming and by the year 2100 may contribute less than 0.40C additional warming. This is much less than what the United Nations IPCC has predicted and of course a small fraction of what alarmists such as Al Gore and James Hansen have predicted.
Below is a summary of Dr. Weinstein’s work, we highly recommend you follow the links to read the complete papers. His work is compelling and is yet one more example of a prominent scientist that disagrees with the anthropogenic theory of global warming.
“Preparing for the possibility of an impending ice age along with the possible consequences of a reduction in Earth’s magnetic field are real concerns. Concern with relatively small effects of possible anthropogenic caused global warming is a misplaced distraction, and will probably lead to the public losing confidence in scientists, and could weaken the support needed when real problems occur.”
“Decreasing availability of oil and anthropogenic pollution (not greenhouse gasses) are real issues. Acid rain, smog, and dirty water sources do need to be fixed. The problems associated with high fuel prices, and dependence on sources of energy from possibly less than friendly foreign countries are critical. While we can’t solve the problems with a single magic bullet, more nuclear power plants, along with wind and Solar power, could fill much of the gap. There are solutions, but first we have to identify the correct problems.”
***
Debunking the CO2 Positive Feedback Myth
Leonard Weinstein, ScD
May 11, 2009
Introduction:
The climate models used in the IPCC reports have made predictions of increases in global temperature of 2ºC to 6ºC over present levels by 2100. These predictions were based on two assumptions:
1. The atmospheric CO2 level would go from 290ppm in about 1850 to at least 580ppm in 2100.
2. The increase in CO2 would have both a direct greenhouse gas effect, and trigger a positive feedback effect. The result would be a small direct increase in temperature from the CO2 , but the increased temperature would also result in an increase in water evaporation. The water vapor is the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, and its increase would further increase temperature, resulting in a positive feedback until the process self-limited at a significantly higher level.
The predicted direct CO2 effect is estimated to be about 1C for the doubling of CO2 level. The present level of about 388ppm would have already caused about half of the direct rise, since the effect is nonlinear. The global temperature has apparently increased by about 0.7ºC in the last 150 years, which is slightly more than the estimated direct CO2 effect, but far short of the expected feedback imposed value. In addition, the temperature level up to about 1850 was significantly lower than typical levels during the last several thousand years. Much of the period between about 1200 to 1850 has in fact been called the “Little Ice Age”. The abnormal low temperature starting point for the change makes the distinction between natural temperature rise due to a recovery from the abnormally low temperature to the present difficult to separate from CO2 and positive feedback induced increases. The CO2 increase was small until about 1940, so the positive contribution from the CO2 is based on an even smaller maximum temperature increase (about 0.3ºC) and a shorter time. All of these facts indicate that calculations of any CO2 effects and positive feedback additions would have badly missed the actual present temperature if we did not already know it.
The proposed solution to the discrepancy by the IPCC is that sulfate gas and particulate pollution from burning fossil fuels, have caused atmospheric “Global Dimming”, which greatly inhibited the correct level of warming. While this cannot be totally refuted, it is not specifically supportable either. Since the need for a strong positive feedback is needed to support the projections for the temperature rise to 2100, the mechanism for such a rise is examined.
Proposed mechanism for glacial to interglacial temperature increases:
It is very likely that over the last several hundred thousand years, axial tilt and precession in the Earth’s orbital motion (Milankovitch cycles). have triggered the transitions from glacial conditions (lasting about 100,000 years) to the significantly warmer inter-glacial periods (lasting 10,000 to 20,000 years) During the glacial cycles massive spreads of glaciers and ocean ice formed over large regions at higher latitudes, and the average Earth temperature was significantly lower than for the inter-glacial periods. The increase of average Solar insolation that occurred due to these orbital variations is not nearly sufficient to directly explain the rapid increase in global temperature, and the rapid melting of much of that ice. The variation has to have been triggered more by the change in distribution of the Solar insolation on the surface. However, once the transition was triggered, it has been hypothesized that some forms of positive feedback amplified the increase in temperature.
The most likely form of the initial trigger was due to local increases in ocean temperature in higher latitudes causing some of the marginal ocean ice to melt, and the increased absorption from the increased ocean area resulting in additional ocean absorption of Solar energy. This positive feedback was probably limited due to the small level of direct increased warming. However, the increased area of ocean and slight increased temperature also caused the water vapor pressure to slightly increase. Since water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, this led to further temperature increases, resulting in a strong positive feedback. The increasing ocean temperature eventually resulted in large amounts of CO2 to be released, since the solubility of the water to CO2 is lower at higher temperature, and the oceans hold the vast majority of ocean+air CO2 . It appears that the large increase in CO2 lagged the overall increasing surface temperature by about 800 years or so. It is then proposed by some that the increased greenhouse effect, due to the increasing CO2 level, supercharged the positive feedback by resulting in more heating. This additional heating then released more water vapor, and the positive feedback then took off until some mechanism stopped the process (possibly cloud formation).
Present conditions and additional heating:
The present total greenhouse effect from water vapor, CO2, Methane, and other greenhouse gases is estimated to make the surface 33ºC warmer than a surface without greenhouse gases. The direct contribution from the CO2 is estimated to be about 2ºC. All greenhouse gases other than water vapor are estimated to be about 3ºC. Why would a small amount of CO2 , or all other gases than water vapor cause more of a positive feedback for heating that that due to the water vapor itself? If there is positive feedback from just the initial forcing, it would not require CO2 to do something strange, the water vapor would do it (i.e., heating causes more water vapor, which causes more heating, etc.).
Also, since water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, positive feedback would make an unstable system unless there was some mechanism that halted runaway conditions. It is likely that increased cloud formation, or even a haze condition caused by the water vapor, would decrease the effective Solar insolation so that a stable temperature is reached. Any increase in any greenhouse gas with changes small compared to the existing total would be self-limited by the water vapor limiting properties. The fact of a self-limiting process for this type of feedback can be seen by the following example. During a hot summer, the total water vapor content is much higher than for a cold winter. If there were no self-limiting mechanism, this would result in a runaway condition, which is not observed.
There is one way the small direct temperature increase from the CO2 could trigger a positive feedback (of limited scope). That would be if the small direct increase were world wide, and significantly decreased total global ice cover on the oceans. The total yearly average of the extent of ocean ice has only been measured for a few decades, and even though it has recently decreased somewhat, the present net effect is that less than 0.3 percent of the Earth’s surface has been exposed to a lower albedo (and thus higher absorption of energy), and this is at locations of very low Solar insolation. Most of even this ice area change is probably due to the natural variation, but the net change of absorbed energy is not sufficient to make a significant difference even if most of it was due to the CO2 increase. In addition, the melted area is now decreasing as we go into a multi-year cooling period. Historical records indicate this slight variation is not unusual over several decadal cycles.
Conclusion:
Since water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas on the Earth, and since the Earth is mostly water covered, it is easy to see why the response of water to perturbations in the level and distribution of Solar insolation would be most important in the shift from glacial ages to interglacial periods. Reasonable arguments can be made for a strong positive feedback of water vapor to explain the rapid temperature increase during the transition. It is clear that such feedbacks are self-limiting, since the increase stops. However, the possible claim that the much smaller CO2 contribution, which even lags the sharp initial rise by many years, can then cause an even stronger positive feedback defies logic.
A recent significant increase of CO2, possibly with a large anthropogenic input, still results in a total less than 7% of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effect. Only about 1/3 of that is in the increase over the claimed “natural” levels. It is posited that this can somehow override the water vapor self-limiting mechanism by triggering a small increase in temperature to thus release more water vapor and supercharge a temperature rise to several times the direct effect of the CO2 itself. Since the self-limiting mechanism for the water vapor is present, this does not follow logically. Actual temperature changes have many drivers, but CO2 does not appear to be a significant driver at the levels or variations in levels present, and certainly can’t have the amplifying effect claimed.
* furthermore :
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
Okay, that’s great. Someone who worked at NASA has written a paper that disagrees with everyone else. Was it published anywhere? How can his method be challenged? How can his data set be analysed? Being displayed on http://www.globalwarminghoax.com doesn’t really count as being published either.
Again as before. Science is not done on the internet. His paper must be published in a journal so that other scientists can critique his method and results. Otherwise this has no more weight than an opinion piece in the Herald.
There aren’t even any references in the paper!
An interesting post of the article by Leonard Weinstein
As Evan says there are no references , may be it is an extract (fair enough) but a link to the full paper would be good.
A lot of the article seems to hang on the line
… The global temperature has apparently increased by about 0.7ºC in the last 150 years, which is slightly more than the estimated direct CO2 effect, but far short of the expected feedback imposed value. …
A lot of the climate change sceptics case seems to always hang on some figure for global average temperature and its variation or lack of.
I am no expert on climate change science, but this figure - with no attribution, doesn’t match a any of the figures quoted from the IPCC.
However my point is that climate change is always more than single global temperature reading.
In any one location (say Sydney CBD), the temperature from day to day varies, some readings are higher than average, other are lower.
Think how meaningless a figure is for a state like NSW, then for a country like Australia - just what was the average temperature for Australia for 2006?
Climate Change is more than just what the statically calculated figure for the average global temperature is an how it varies from a year or decade ago.
I actually had a much more sensible comment before my references post, which is ‘awaiting moderation’. Not sure what that’s all about. Crikey!
maybe it was *too* sensible and first dog is doing the moderator shift today
Again Choose Life, science is not done on the internet, nor is it even done by the IPCC. The IPCC combine and assess the papers available. The fundamentals in the papers are not written by the IPCC, they are written by scientists and challenged by other scientists. You’ll have to do better than this.
CHOOSE LIFE: Your suggestion about capping volcanoes makes so much sense. Why didn’t I think of that? Going to extreme and fanciful scenarios never wins an argument, it only makes the person who wrote it look like a galah. Also it makes people wonder if they really read the comment at all. Perfect example can be found under Guy Rundle’s ‘inglorious basterd Scheungraber. Hooray? Wed 12 August. where a nitwit attacks me for everything I didn’t do yet fails to take me on about something I deliberately did put in. (I mean, I meant what I wrote). Finally, you offered to be burnt at the stake, CHOOSE LIFE, So I’m saying ‘Hoy, here’s the match”.
Grazie! Venise,
I appreciate everyones responses and attempts to point me in the right direction.
I filter information and collate patterns into my own personal understanding.
The discussion has been amusing here at least.
One Qn tho. to those who are hot to keep up this sport. If science isn’t done by the IPCC then why is its recommendations followed as if it only spouts gospel?
ipcc is the international Gvernmental panel on clmate change it isn’t a research lab.
The compile and analyse cc research