Andrew Bolt: “China has zero intention” of setting up carbon tax? Sorry Andrew, they are

How’s that looking Tony?

Quick update, I’m still working on other materials.

One of the more frequent arguments against limiting carbon emissions via emission trading schemes is the perceived damage this will do to national economies.

Now that Australian example has proved this is not the case, the other “go to” argument for deniers has been “China” is not acting.

If the Chinese are happy to emit and not have an ETS, why should we?

Indeed, earlier this year Herald Sun journalist and climate “sceptic” Andrew Bolt made this very point;

Just follow the money. China is buying access to our coal deposits because it plans to use more coal, not less.

Now consider our stupidity. While China plans to use more Australian coal, Labor and its Greens allies want to force us to ultimately use none, by hitting us with a carbon dioxide tax that China has zero intention of imposing itself.

If it all works out to plan, China will use the cheap Australian coal that Australia will forbid itself.

Sorry Andrew.

Looks like the Chinese will have a national scheme up and running in three years.

China’s move to set up a carbon trading scheme undercuts the most common argument against the Australian ETS and similar schemes: that we’re “doing it alone” and it will hurt the economy:

China’s first steps to build what is destined to be the world’s second-biggest emissions market are boosting the prospects for fledgling programs from Australia to California. 

Four cement makers in China, the world’s biggest emitter, bought 1.3 million pollution permits for 60 yuan ($9) a metric ton last month in Guangdong. The province plans the largest of seven pilot programs for a proposed national market within three years. Exchanges will trade permits to emit an estimated 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases a year by 2015, close to half the volume in the European Union system. 

By setting its own emission limits and allowing polluters to buy and sell permits, China’s domestic market is set to dwarf its own participation in the UN market, Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasts. 

The country’s commitment may also help break a logjam in global-treaty negotiations and support trade in Australia and the US, where opposition to carbon pricing is unwavering, according to Climate Bridge, which has developed projects in China since 2006. 

“What China is doing with its pilot scheme and ultimately with a national scheme sets a terrific example for the rest of the world,” said Alex Wyatt, the Melbourne-based chief executive officer of Climate Bridge and author of a report released yesterday with the Sydney-based Climate Institute. “Any suggestions by people in the West that China is not acting on climate change aren’t true.”

With each passing month arguments against action are looking increasingly silly:

Governments in California and Australia said they are working together to promote global carbon trading. Australia is also in talks with China, according to Mark Dreyfus, the country’s parliamentary secretary for climate change. Dreyfus said he met in New York last month with China’s National Development and Reform Commission Vice Chairman Xie Zhenhua. 

“We have been working closely with China over the last year on a range of policy and technical issues to support the development of credible, robust and effective carbon markets,” Dreyfus said in Sept. 28 statement. 

Disagreement on whether developing nations should be forced to reduce emissions has been the “sticking point” in global climate talks, according to Sjardin at Bloomberg New Energy Finance. While a new climate treaty by 2015 remains an “ambitious goal,” negotiators at this year’s summit in Doha may start on “a more hopeful note” than last year, he said. 

China’s steps to limit emissions are also undermining arguments against cap and trade in the US and Australia, according to Sjardin. 

“China has long been perceived as a laggard on climate action and used as scapegoat by other countries like Australia to delay action,” Connor said. “But this argument is increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to make given China’s recent policies.”

See also Climate Spectator:

China’s emerging schemes can dovetail with other global schemes as a stepping stone towards a global climate change agreement by 2015.

It is important to understand that China’s actions are driven by self interest, not only regarding concern for climate impacts, but for strengthening energy security, developing a low carbon economy with export opportunities and showing international leadership.

This story is mirrored worldwide. Countries have chosen different paths, targeting different industries, depending on their economic makeup and what they perceive as an opportunity for gaining a competitive edge in an increasingly global low carbon economy.

Action at national levels is significant if yet still insufficient to deal with the rising climate challenge.  Tony Windsor also launched The Climate Institute’s new interactive map of global climate action which will be continually updated. Just to prove the point of ongoing changes, Norway yesterday doubled its carbon tax on oil and gas.  

The action in China and globally belies the myth that Australia is acting alone. If we are fair dinkum about doing our fair share, then Australia must ready itself for stronger emissions reductions than the 5 per cent 2020 target that is based on a world of inaction and is not enough to help avoid the risks of the growing climate challenge.

With each passing month, the claims of the deniers look increasingly silly.

Tagged , , , ,

308 thoughts on “Andrew Bolt: “China has zero intention” of setting up carbon tax? Sorry Andrew, they are

  1. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    October 29, 2012 at 9:24 am
    Yawn. Let me know when Hansen’s oceans start to boil

    all humanity will be long dead due to the temperature increase well before that was to happen

  2. john byatt says:

    Radiative forcings for 39 greenhouse gases


    The clouds have asmaller effect on the radiative forcing of CO; than on othergreenhouse gases, because the total optical depth is already large due to higher CO2 concentrations and strong absorption in the 15 um band.

    .stick to the science eric not the weatherman


  3. john byatt says:

    we have been here before

    eric the logarythmic effect is to doubling what it was previously not to pick a ppm such as 20ppm

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Actually John, with a logarithmic effect you can do just that. Its not a perfect description of CO2, Judith Curry thinks that climate sensitivity is different for different doublings, and you can quibble over the slope of the curve (at what point the effect will “peter out”), but you can infer some basics simply from the fact it is a logarithmic curve.

      For example, with logarithmic curves, you see more bang for buck up front – the first few increments add more effect than any subsequent increments. That is simply the nature of a logarithm. If it behaves any differently, then it is not a logarithmic curve, it is something else.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric if your claim was true ,that we are near 3.7wm2 at less than 50% increase then we are fucked

        doubling or 100% increase in CO2 equals 3.7wm2 ,

        you are claiming that a 50% increase leads to 3.7wm2

        read archibald post again, he makes up his own values and gets it horrible wrong as usual

      • john byatt says:

        of course it will be different for different doublings,

        this first doubling will have primed the climate for even more massive positive feedbacks
        the next doubling may not even take half as long to achieve as the first doubling, the ocean by then will also be outgassing and it will also totally annihilate the natural variation signal. La nina and solar minimums will be a small blip by then

  4. john byatt says:

    Wondered where you got that crap eric

    should have known

    david archibald at wuwt “co2 is all tuckered out after a 20ppm increase”

    here is an actual climatologist eric

    .Temperatures will respond to net forcing – not just CO2, or CO2-eq, and net forcing is around 1.7 W/m2 from the pre-industrial – that is under 50% of the forcing from 2xCO2, not 76%, nor 80% nor ‘almost’ a doubling. Claims that we should have reached equilibrium with that forcing are equally risible. Lindzen is effectively assuming zero heat capacity in the oceans and that aerosol forcing is 0 W/m2 with no uncertainty. The statements he makes on this have only rhetorical content – no science. – gavin

  5. john byatt says:

    Have a go at Erics maths

    basically Eric states that 110ppm is 58% of 280ppm

    • Eric Worrall says:

      If you stop counting on your fingers, and pick up a calculator, you can try the math for yourself.

      I know its a violation of climate science protocol, but I provided details of my calculation.

      • john byatt says:

        I think your calculator needs a new battery eric,

        try again

        start ppm 1880 = 280

        doubling = 560

        so far we have added 110ppm

        still another 170ppm to go to double

        if you calculate 110 as 58% of 280, the banks will love you as a customer

        • Eric Worrall says:

          No wonder you’re an alarmist – you think CO2 forcing is linear.

          Try to understand. Some curves are nice and straight. Others have pretty curvy shapes.

          The pretty curvy shape which corresponds to CO2 forcing is called a logarithmic curve. Unlike straight lines, logarithmic curves start with a steep slope, and gradually ease off as you move further to the right – like the left hand side of a rounded hill. Note moving to the right in this case corresponds to adding CO2, while the shape of the hill is the amount of temperature forcing the CO2 adds to climate.

          This means if you double CO2, you get more than half of the expected CO2 forcing for a doubling, before you reach the halfway point in terms of how much CO2 you have added to the atmosphere – the steep part of the hill takes you over the halfway point in terms of forcing, before you reach the halfway point in terms of how much CO2 you have added.

          This incidentally is why alarmism is in trouble if CO2 climate sensitivity is much below 2c / doubling – much below 2c / doubling, and CO2 simply wont have a significant enough impact to care about.

  6. john byatt says:

    Eric Worrall says:
    October 28, 2012 at 10:17 pm
    Not so. Lindzen postulates negative feedback which damps the raw CO2 forcing, reducing it form 1c / doubling to 0.5c / doubling.

    Alarmists think additional water vapour evaporated due to CO2 warming amplifies the CO2 signal – the IPCC estimate of 3c / doubling is based on the assumption that the 1c / doubling CO2 warming is amplified by water vapour.

    Lindzen thinks additional water vapour is more likely to form clouds, reducing the warming which otherwise would have occurred, by reflecting more sunlight back into space.

    And the only way that Lindzen can maintain that line is by claiming that we have already reached 2 X CO2

    which you reject eric.

    So therefore Lindzen’s 2 X CO2 = .5DegC must be wrong because, again he claims that we are already there



    • Eric Worrall says:

      Math was never your strongest skill John.

      Both Lindzen and Curry claim that only part of the 0.8c warming was caused by CO2.

      So Lindzen’s 0.5c / doubling fits well with 0.8c of warming.

      If as Lindzen suggests, we are already seeing the effect of a CO2e doubling, then this means he is suggesting that around 0.3c of the warming was due to natural causes (solar variation, etc.).

      • john byatt says:

        We are not even at 50% of the doubling for CO2e Eric,

        So Lindzen must be wrong again

        Claiming something and proving it are not the same eric

        It gets worse, Lindzen claims that we are at equilibrium

        The man is a nut job

        • Eric Worrall says:

          You are forgetting CO2 forcing is logarithmic.

          To work out what proportion of a doubling we are currently experiencing (just from CO2):-

          %warming due to a doubling = (ln(390) – ln(260)) / (ln(520) – ln(260)) = 0.58 * 100% = 58%.

          So just from CO2 we are already experiencing 58% of the warming we would expect from a doubling of CO2 since pre-industrial times.

          I’ll leave it to Curry and Lindzen to figure out whether other forcings due to industrial methane release etc. is sufficient to make up the missing 42%.

      • john byatt says:

        Not even close Eric

        Forcing from 2 X CO2 3.7wm2

        current forcing about 1.7wm2

        less than 50% eric

        not looking good

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Given CO2 forcing is logarithmic, and current CO2 levels are around 50% higher than pre-industrial, we must already be experiencing more than half of the expected effect of a doubling of CO2 – unless you add whacky latency periods, or some other statistical trick to your calculation.

          Logarithms give you most of your effect up front – the amount of additional effect diminishes with an increased level of forcing.

      • john byatt says:

        FFS eric the RF for doubling of CO2 is 3.7wm2, we are at 1.7wm2, that is less than 50%

        Now you claim that the extra 2wm2 will vanish because of your misunderstanding that the globe is in equilibrium already, this is so wrong it is not even wrong

        radiative forcing does not reduce because of the logarythmic effect

        the first doubling produces 3.7wm2, adding more CO2 increases the forcing, it does not sit around awaiting the next doubling

  7. john byatt says:


    “The answer is no, I don’t unreservedly accept it.

    I accept it is possible, but as I said, I would like to know more about Judith Curry’s reservations.

    How many ways can I answer this question?

    No is the correct answer eric, Lindzens claim is absolute crap but i am not surprised that like curry you do not have a clue what is even being discussed.

    It follows that if Lindzens claim that we are already at 2X CO2e then his prediction for doubling of CO2 temperature must also be wrong.

    So you have agreed in effect that Lindzen is wrong about the temperature rise from doubling of CO2

    • Eric Worrall says:

      I haven’t agreed anything of the sort.

      Neither Lindzen nor Curry believe that the 0.8c rise since pre-industrial is entirely due to greenhouse warming. They believe it contributed, not that it is wholly responsible.

      • john byatt says:

        Humans have been responsible for 104% of the warming eric,
        the solar contribution has been negative since the 1970’s
        where is your paper that warming over the past four decades is party due to solar variation,

        You are all claiming that we are heading into an extended cool period due solar minimum

        You did agree that Lindzen is wrong about doubling of CO2 temp eric.

        he said that we are already there.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          No, I said Lindzen’s suggestion we are already there is possible, but I want to know more about why Curry disagrees.

          The fact solar has declined since the 70s does not invalidate the solar theory. If you turn up the gas under a cooker, the heat in the pot does not decline if you stop turning up the gas.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      According to your article China plans a substantial expansion of nuclear and hydro capacity.

      Given that the output of a single nuclear reactor, on most days dwarfs the energy output of all of the UK’s investment in alternative energy, I suspect the windmills are window dressing.

      And the hydro development plans should be a concern to someone who cares about the environment. China’s hydro schemes to date have been an unmitigated environmental and social disaster.

      You should be celebrating China’s plans to expand nuclear power though – nuclear is the only high intensity low carbon energy source which has the potential to reduce human CO2 emissions in the near term.

      • john byatt says:

        100 million Kw’s of window dressing
        you inhabit a weird world eric

        Effectively developing wind power. As a non-water renewable energy, wind power is currently the most appropriate energy source for large-scale development and market-driven utilization. China’s wind power industry is the fastest-growing in the world. During the 12th Five-Year Plan period, China will stress both intensive and distributed exploitation, and optimize the development layout of wind power. It will push forward wind power construction in an orderly way in the northwestern, northern and northeastern regions, which boast abundant wind energy, and speed up the development and utilization of distributed resources. It will steadily develop offshore wind farms, and improve the standards for wind-power equipment and the supervision system of this industry. China will encourage wind-power equipment manufacturers to expedite R&D of key technologies, so as to accelerate the technological upgrading of this industry. By means of speeding up grid construction, increasing the grid’s dispatch level, improving the performance of wind-power equipment, and strengthening wind-power prediction and forecast, China aims to improve its power grids’ wind-power integration ability. The installed generating capacity of wind power is expected to reach 100 million kw by the end of 2015, with 500 kw of generating capacity coming from offshore wind farms.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          We shall see.

          European plans for replacing their energy sources with renewables have fallen rather flat.

          The missing piece of the puzzle is energy storage. Renewables (other than hydro) produce their power at unpredictable times, which is not useful for an economy based on reliable delivery of power.

          I do find some proposed solutions for energy storage amusing though.

          One of my favourites is supercapacitor storage (or ultracapacitor). Sounds like a good idea in principle right? Since batteries wear out, use capacitors instead.

          But lets do a little math.

          Say you wanted to provide backup for 1Gw of power consumption, for 1 day.

          This means you would have to store:-

          1Gw x 1day
          = 10^9 joules / second x 86400 seconds / day
          = 8.6 x 10^13 joules of energy.

          By an interesting coincidence, the amount of energy released by Little Boy (the nuclear bomb which destroyed Hiroshima) was around 6.3 x 10^13 joules

          So if the supercapacitor storage facility was to suffer sudden catastrophic dielectric failure, as highly stressed capacitors sometimes do, the energy release would be indistinguishable from a 10 kiloton nuclear explosion.

  8. john byatt says:

    Eric Lindzen claims that we are already at doubling of CO2e at 0.8DegC,

    Do you accept Lindzens claim ?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      That is not exactly what Lindzen claims.

      Lindzen agrees there has been around 0.8c warming since pre-industrial times, and that CO2 forcing, by itself, should cause around 1c / doubling. He does not think that the entire 0.8c was caused by CO2.

      The following is an analysis by Judith Curry, co-author of the BEST study, on Lindzen’s presentation earlier this year to the UK Parliament.

      • john byatt says:

        Curry seems to think it is nonsense

        “There has been a doubling of equivalent CO2 over the past 150 years” Not exactly sure what that means, perhaps equivalent means also CH4, etc? This does not seem correct.”

        of course that is what Lindzen means, does curry not even understand CO2e ?

        Do you accept Lindzens claim that we are already at double CO2e or do you wish to remain silent. ?

      • john byatt says:

        Again eric the question is simple

        lindzen claims that we have already reached a doubling of CO2 effectively by CO2e

        do you accept that ?

        yes or no eric


        • Eric Worrall says:

          The answer is no, I don’t unreservedly accept it.

          I accept it is possible, but as I said, I would like to know more about Judith Curry’s reservations.

          How many ways can I answer this question?

      • john byatt says:

        Eric has gone from claiming that lindzen expects .5DegC warming from 2X CO2 to now claiming 1DegC, which is it Eric ?

        “Lindzen agrees there has been around 0.8c warming since pre-industrial times, and that CO2 forcing, by itself, should cause around 1c / doubling”

        “Lindzen’s estimate of 0.5c / doubling leads to the conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is noise”

        mutually contradictory statements eric

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Not so. Lindzen postulates negative feedback which damps the raw CO2 forcing, reducing it form 1c / doubling to 0.5c / doubling.

          Alarmists think additional water vapour evaporated due to CO2 warming amplifies the CO2 signal – the IPCC estimate of 3c / doubling is based on the assumption that the 1c / doubling CO2 warming is amplified by water vapour.

          Lindzen thinks additional water vapour is more likely to form clouds, reducing the warming which otherwise would have occurred, by reflecting more sunlight back into space.

      • john byatt says:

        Lindzen has refuted claims that he stated that water vapour is a negative feedback his paper re clouds was refutted by direct evidence, what have to got to back your nonsense eric

        again , Lindzen has refuted claims that he stated that water vapour was a negative feedback.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric, you have homework to do

        Study clouds for feedbacks,

        your comment is just to inane to warrant a reply

  9. john byatt says:

    Letter in the Gympie Times yesterday from Dr Wes Allen, a reply to my letter regarding that LNP member Richard Pearson who convinced the LNP to remove climate science from the QLD school curriculum and who did not hang around here or at uknowispeaksense to discuss his nonsense.

    in part.

    “Richard Pearson did not appreciate my pointing out the design faults in his fish box and glad wrap experiment, so I have some sympathy for John Byatt ”

    Allen claims that he is neither denier nor alarmist but instead takes the middle ground (Lindzen and Spencer groupie).

    have pointed out to him that the middle ground for climate sensitivity is 3DegC and that the Australian government worst case sea level rise of 1.1m by 2100 is also the middle ground.

    the worst case scenario is now 1.9m by 2100

    Newspapers like the Gympie Times are to be congratulated for bringing climate change to the forefront in their letters columns,

    • I am amazed John that the Gympie Times is so progressive…or at least balanced with Gympie having the reputation it does. You are absolutley correct that they should be congratulated. Perhaps another letter to the editor?

    • Eric Worrall says:

      3c / doubling is well and truly in alarmist territory – a product of the flawed IPCC process which brought us gems such as the Glaciergate claims.

      Lindzen’s estimate of 0.5c / doubling leads to the conclusion that anthropomorphic climate change is noise – nothing to worry about.

      • Ian says:

        Is that the same Lindzen who made the claim in 2004 that the climate would be significantly colder in 20 years? And, who soon after refused to place a bet on it with James Annan, a British climate researcher?

        If there is nothing to worry about, then what are the odds of a new global temperature record within 3 years? Surely, if Lindzen is correct, then the odds must be very high. 100 to 1 maybe? Skeptics seem reluctant to provide an estimate.
        Why is that?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Natural variability Ian – there may well be an outlier in a few years.

          And we’re not the ones trying to sell sensationalist alarmism, with hyped predictions of no more snow, permanent drought, boiling oceans and melting ice (examples available on request).

          But there is another question you should be asking – where is the missing heat, and when will it appear? Because there is rather a lot – CO2 levels have risen by 10% since the mid 90s, but global temperatures have flatlined.

          It is alarmists who are frantically inventing theories of deep ocean heating and Chinese particulates reflecting all the heat back into space – and losing former supporters like James Lovelock, as the farce exceeds the laughter threshold of all but the most fanatical supporters.

      • john byatt says:

        “Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point “nutty.” He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.” However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this “iris” theory in 2001[7], and offered more support in a 2009 paper[44], but today “most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited.” Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained “some stupid mistakes” in his handling of the satellite data. “It was just embarrassing,” he said in an interview. “The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque.” .[59]
        Dr. Lindzen told the Times: “You have politicians who are being told if they question this, they are anti-science. We are trying to tell them, no, questioning is never anti-science.” He further explained: “If I’m right, we’ll have saved money. If I’m wrong, we’ll know it in 50 years and can do something.

        basically, Lindzen will continue to put out updates etc every year or so and then admit again that he was wrong only to again put another update out the following year.

        IT will not take fifty years to know he is wrong, we already know that

      • Ian says:

        Re the chances of a record global temperature within the next 3 years Eric replies:
        “Natural variability Ian – there may well be an outlier in a few years….” (followed by a lot of nonsense).

        I take it then, that you would agree that the odds should be about the same as for an outlier occurring i.e. about 100 to 1?? Maybe more ?? Maybe less??

        Humour me and simply give me a rough estimate.

  10. john byatt says:

    Royal society

    The chemical changes in the oceans caused by increases
    in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will
    include a lowering of the pH, an increase in dissolved CO2,
    a reduction in the concentration of carbonate ions and an
    increase in bicarbonate ions.

    The oceans are currently taking up about one tonne
    of CO2 associated with human activities per year for
    each person on the planet (IPCC 2001). Almost half of
    the CO2 produced in the past 200 years by burning
    fossil fuels and cement manufacture has been absorbed
    by the oceans. This has already resulted in a change
    to ocean chemistry, reducing surface seawater pH
    by about 0.1 units, which corresponds to an increase
    of about 30% in the concentration of hydrogen

    The affects of possible impacts of future cumulative CO2
    emissions by 2100 have been modelled for the oceans.
    These models, including analyses from the GLODAP,
    International Carbon-cycle Model Intercomparison
    Project Phase 3 (OCMIP3) and the LLNL presented in this
    Section, rely on the same basic modelling approaches
    (Bryan 1969; Cox 1984). These studies show that even at
    a modest future projection of CO2 emissions, of about
    900 Gt C, direct impact of ocean acidification is very likely
    to cause the Southern Ocean to become undersaturated
    with respect to aragonite. This would lead to severe
    consequences for organisms that make the aragonite
    form of CaCO3 shells and plates.

    As more CO2 enters the atmosphere from human
    activity, more will be taken up by the oceans (Table 1). If
    CO2 emissions continue on current trends, this could
    result in the average pH of the surface oceans
    decreasing by 0.5 units below the level in pre-industrial
    times, by 2100. This is beyond the range of natural
    variability and represents a level probably not
    experienced for at least hundreds of thousands of years
    and possibly much longer (Caldeira & Wickett 2003).
    Critically, the rate of change is also at least 100 times
    higher than the maximum rate observed during this time

    period. These changes are so rapid that they will
    significantly reduce the buffering capacity of the natural
    processes that have moderated changes in ocean
    chemistry over most of geological time.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The decline of the Royal Society is a rather sad episode in the ongoing decline of the Age of Reason.

      Their motto is “Nullius in Verba”, or roughly translated, “Take nobodies word for it”.

      Their expression of a statement of support for the alarmist view of anthropomorphic Climate Change is in direct violation of their own charter – such a statement is made in an expectation that people should take their word for it that their statement is correct.

      From this it is reasonable to conclude that the Royal Society has become just another group of political activists, like the Union of Concerned Scientists. They have betrayed the principles of their founders, and traded their own integrity for political convenience.

      • Nick says:

        Shorter Eric: “The RS was alright until they supported science I disagree with”

        Do you realise how ridiculous you sound as a self-appointed arbiter of RS credibility?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Not half as ridiculous as the Royal Society sound, demanding people take their word for it on Climate Change, in direct violation of their own charter.

  11. On October 24th in response to ocean acidification discussion, EricWorrall said,

    “Nonsense – sea water PH is highly variable. As the following peer reviewed paper shows, daily sea water PH in coastal areas can bounce up and down by 1.4 or more.

    The kind of tiny shifts in PH you are basing your scare on, even assuming the models are accurate, would be lost in the noise of daily changes.

    Nice try, but you’ll have to do better than that. Even you should be able to see that ocean acidification simply hasn’t got the pulling power that the global warming scare had in its heyday.”

    Eric, in typical idiotic denier fashion, you have either read the abstract only and/or cherrypicked the bits that fit your bias. As usual, when a denier offers a piece of peer reviewed information that allegedly supports their position, one must be truly sceptical and read it. The detail Eric, is in the caveats. Here are the really important bits.

    “Finally, the greatest transitions in pH over time were observed at locations termed our “Extreme” sites – a CO2 venting site in Italy (site S2 in ref. [36]) and a submarine spring site in Mexico. For these sites, the patterns were extremely variable and lacked a detectable periodicity (Figure 2G).”

    It’s not surprising Eric that the extreme sites had high variability and produced your “1.4 or more” but the actual range reported in that paper was 0.024 to 1.430 pH units. But here’s the real kicker.

    “The sites examined in this study do not comprehensively represent pH variability in coastal ecosystems, partly because we focused on surface epipelagic and shallow benthic pH variability. Many organisms that may be impacted by pH variability and ocean acidification reside at intermediate (>10 m) to abyssal depths.”

    Ooooouch! They didn’t even consider the water where the biggest problems are going to occur. Now I know you will try and tell me that any creatures that struggle with lowering pH at depth will somehow miraculously be replaced by genetically more tolerant species from higher up in the water column as you did previously with John, but before you do that, ask yourself, why are those species not already at depth? What niche are they already exploiting? Are they able to tolerate the increased pressure that comes with increasing depth? How will foodwebs be changed? Are they specialists or generalists? How many species are there to replace how many species that will lose out? I doubt you can answer a single one of these actually quie basic questions because you lack any scientific literacy whatsoever. You put forward simplistic ignorant arguments by cherrypicking and misrepresenting actual experts and don’t even have the common decency to be embarrassed.

    Now, I will let the the authors of the paper you cited have the final say.

    “For all the marine habitats described above, one very important consideration is that the extreme range of environmental variability does not necessarily translate to extreme resistance to future OA. Instead, such a range of variation may mean that the organisms resident in tidal, estuarine, and upwelling regions are already operating at the limits of their physiological tolerances (a la the classic tolerance windows of Fox – see [68]). Thus, future acidification, whether it be atmospheric or from other sources, may drive the physiology of these organisms closer to the edges of their tolerance windows. When environmental change is layered upon their present-day range of environmental exposures, they may thereby be pushed to the “guardrails” of their tolerance [20], [68].”

    • Eric Worrall says:

      THATS Your Kicker? That some unknown slime worm in an ocean abyss might take a hit if ocean PH changes? Exactly why should I give a sh*t?

      And lots of may do this, may do that. My point still stands – since there are available genetic reservoirs of high CO2 resistance, if they are required, they will simply spread through the general population.

      • Ian says:

        “…genetic reservoirs of high CO2 resistance..” ???????
        Is that similar to the condition some people suffer from, namely
        “genetic resistance to common sense” ??

      • Like I thought. You’re an intellectual lightweight with zero understanding of ecology, yet you feel qualified to discuss it? Dunning-Kruger effect. You didn’t even read the paper you cited. The grown up thing to do is just admit you were wrong. The childish thing would be to continue to demonstrate your ignorance by pretending you know what you’re talking about. What is really disturbing is that you also now appear to have turned on the very source you provided. You will say anything for expediency regardless of how hypocritical or even stupid you appear. It’s sad and you should be embarrassed.

      • Which species Eric? It’s time to back up your claims. Which species in which oceans have genetic reservoirs? How does the genome of a calcium carbonate producing animal overcome basic chemistry? How many of the 4000 species of foraminifera have the genetic diversity, and as yet unexplained by you, mechanism to overcome basic chemistry? Do you even know the importance of foraminifera to the oceanic ecosystems? I suspect not, because if you did you wouldn’t be stupid enough to ask, “Why should I give a shit?” But that’s just one Order. What about the dinoflaggelates? What about the gastropods or the ostracods? What can you tell me about their genetic diversity?

      • “…genetic reservoirs of high CO2 resistance…”

        Don’t you mean H2CO3? CO2 is a gas. When it meets water there is a chemical reaction and the result is carbonic acid. It’s okay Eric. It was an amateurish mistake. Anyone could have made it…….perhaps.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Actually it doesn’t Udontknow.

          Some of it forms Carbonate ions, and H+ ions. But only some – CO2 is a weak acid, so unlike acids like Sulphuric Acid, it doesn’t disassociate very easily.

          But you’re some sort of scientists – you know that already, right?

          And none of you have addressed my point, that many species of shellfish and other marine organisms (including coral) are represented in champaign reefs. This means any special adaptions to CO2 are available to the general population, should they offer a selective advantage.

          You’d rather cling to your empty hobgoblins – like a bunch of schoolgirls making up fantasy ghost stories on a school camp.

        • “CO2 is a weak acid”

          No. CO2 is a gas, moron.

          and yes, I do know those things however, I decided to keep it very simple for you because you are an idiot. Clearly you are smart enough to loook up Wikipedia. The next step though is to cite peer reviewed scientific literature correctly. Oh that’s right, you tried that already and failed miserably. I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to actually come up with anything legitimate in your responses to my other questions. I choose life.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          CO2 dissolved in water is a weak acid. But if you had a scientific education, you would know that.

        • CO2 + H2O = ?

          According to you, the answer is CO2. I already told you that it is H2CO3. My 12 year old daughter knows more about chemistry than you Eric. If you can’t even get this basic stuff correct, how on Earth can you expect to understand anything more complex. On that, I am still waiting for you to demonstrate your scientific literacy with your responses to my other questions. Of course you have the right to ignore them as you have in the past. It’s what you do. The adult thing to do of course is acknowledge them and admit you don’t have the answer. You are a grown up aren’t you Eric, or am I responding to a petulant child?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nice attempted obfuscation Uknownothing. And an incorrect statement.

          CO2 dissolved in water takes several forms:
          Free CO2, H2CO3, H+ ions, HCO3- and CO3–

          There is an equilibrium between each of these states.

          The adult thing to do is to admit you flunked the Chemistry and Physics components of your Biology course. But we already knew that – otherwise you wouldn’t be an alarmist.

        • I already congratulated you on your use of Wikipedia. Now I shall wait for you to answer my other questions sothat you can demonstrate your knowledge of ocean ecosytems and the genetics of marine organisms. Let me refresh your memory. “How does the genome of a calcium carbonate producing animal overcome basic chemistry? How many of the 4000 species of foraminifera have the genetic diversity, and as yet unexplained by you, mechanism to overcome basic chemistry? Do you even know the importance of foraminifera to the oceanic ecosystems? I suspect not, because if you did you wouldn’t be stupid enough to ask, “Why should I give a shit?” But that’s just one Order. What about the dinoflaggelates? What about the gastropods or the ostracods? What can you tell me about their genetic diversity?” I’ll be out working in the field for the next week or so. That will give you plenty of time to do some research. Hopefully my friends in here will constantly remind you of your responsibilities to back up your assertions with evidence.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          This is the CO2 / plant food nonsense all over again.

          Remember how I embarrassed you, by pointing out how strong the evidence was that plants would do just fine at higher CO2 levels? The evidence being that modern plants to well in greenhouses, and the ancestors of modern plants did well in naturally elevated CO2 levels?

          Shellfish have no problem forming their shells at high CO2 levels. For most of Earth’s history CO2 levels have been far higher than today, and shellfish and corals did just fine. The world’s limestone is the remains of hard shelled creatures which formed their shells at CO2 levels far higher than today’s level.

          In the unlikely even that modern life has lost some of its adaptions to elevated CO2 levels, substantial reservoirs of ocean life exist in regions of natural elevated CO2 levels. Their genetic adaptions would simply spread through the natural population, should CO2 levels become sufficiently elevated to cause such adaptions to provide a selective advantage.

          You’re so sold on the CO2 / catastrophist view, you simply aren’t looking at the possibility that flora and fauna would do just fine at elevated CO2 levels.

          Well guess what? People are fed up with alarmist lies. You can witter on all you want about your hobgoblins, and people just don’t care anymore.

        • No, you embarrassed yourself by trying to extrapolate controlled greenhouse experiments to outside situations and failed to provide any scientific arguments for your silly claims. I seem to recall you provided me with a brochure for a CO2 machine for nurseries as evidence. As for the rest of your response, you have yet again failed to provide any sources to back up your assertions. You are an intellectual lightweight, full of hot air and a complete waste of everyone’s time. get back under your bridge troll.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Lets recap:-

          a) Plants grow more vigorously in an artificially enhanced CO2 environment.

          b) Plants used to grow well in a naturally higher CO2 environment.

          I would suggest the null case is that “plants to well at higher CO2 levels”. But as an alarmist, you cannot allow such a position to stand, because CO2 is bad.

        • Yep that works if you think like a 5 year old. Which plants eric? What about nitrification? What about generalists versus specialists? What about niche theory? What about competition? What about geologic time and evolutionary timeframes? These simpletone statements you keepcoming out with might work in the denier dens where equally idiotic simpletons are keen to lap it up, but all you are doing demonstrating just how little you actually know. I’m still waiting for you to back up your other claims.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Show me the greenhouse which uses reduced CO2 levels to avoid damage to their delicate commercial crop.

          The suggestion that a little extra CO2 will damage plants is a nonsensical fabrication which only exists in government sponsored research projects.

        • You are beyond stupid Eric. Your fallback position is to answer questions with questions and spout propaganda. Thankyou for demonstrating your character flaws. Once again I will resist the urge to try and educate you because its a complete waste of my time. Hopefully Mike will introduce an anti-Poe clause in his blog rules. I for one am not going to promote your crap in here by responding to you anymore. I may feature you at my blog in my “denier comment of the day” section though. It is reserved for the painfully stupid. Ciao

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Mike is surprisingly well behaved RE participation in his blog – far too many bloggers turn their blogs into echo chambers by shutting out dissenting voices.

          As for the wider debate, shutting out dissenting voices only works if you have the upper hand. Phil Jones etc. thought they could shut out dissenting voices in the IPCC process, through their personal authority, as a few entertaining Climategate emails show.

          But the Climategate scandal has weakened their authority.

  12. Eric Worrall says:

    Yes, a good example of alarmist deception.

    When the evidence doesn’t lead to the right conclusion, you alter the evidence.

    Apparently PBS “apologised for their mistake”.

      • Nick says:

        Whereas Watts never apologises for his mistakes…. I can understand why he doesn’t: it would occupy a lot of his time because he is in the business of misdirection.

        Poor old Watts has made a pact with the devil in accepting funding from the right-wing lobbyists. He now has to allow vexatious bullshitters like the CEI and Heartland run smears on his patch. He probably was flattered that the big boys wanted to make contact,but now feels used.

        He can’t afford to apologise for that diversionary nastiness.

        Lets’ remember some of the mistakes that Watts “apologised” for:

        back in early 2008, he didn’t know that the major temperature metrics use different baseline periods for their anomalies,and got all sulky when that was pointed out

        he has reproduced ‘analysis’ using faulty reasoning and methodology,like cumulatively summing anomalies in surface and sea surface temperature. Bullshit stuff,never apologised.

        He and Basil Copeland tried a similar thing with correlating peak sunspot cycles and peak temperatures,fell into an autocorrelation trap,removed inconvenient data, blundered and never apologised.

        He had some chump stump up a post on temperature anomalies who decided to discard a fixed baseline period and use the previous decade to any date he chose to calculate an anomaly,and subtract any given months data from the same month in each of the three decades before to declare temperature trendless. Another stats blunder that Anthony did not see coming and for which he did not apologise.

        He let the genuinely potty S Goddard post cherry picks about snow data. Steve always gets the answer by hacking away all the inconvenient numbers and dates.
        Steve got dropped from the team.He may have got an apology from Anthony,but that was private.
        Watts tried to blame west Antarctic peninsula warming on UHI effects from Antarctic bases…in his usual schtick of teaching real technicians how to suck eggs. then it was pointed out to him thatthis was bullshit and hedid nor apolgise. He used a photograph showing a non-official recording station at a base which a real technician who had worked there recognised. The tech pointed out it was not a global climate data station and was simply used for the workers needs. Watts did not apologise.

        He co-authored a paper that disproved ‘his’ greatest ‘theory’,but still goes on about it as though the paper does not exist. Unapologetically.

        He slagged Muller off for science by press release,then did the same thing himself. No recognition of the irony or hypocrisy and no apology.

        He disappears commenters for saying the ‘wrong thing’ [debunking his story of the hour]. Yet pretends its only “the other side” that does that. No apologies.

        He outs anonymous awkward customers,or threatens to out them.No apologies.

        Watts has NO IDEA about climate science and will not apologise.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Yes, fascinating because PBS electronically altered their footage to hide the fact Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb, one of the physics greats of the 20th century, signed the oregon petition – he expressed doubt about the validity of predictions of dangerous anthropomorphic global warming.

      But we’re used to that from alarmists – if the evidence doesn’t lead to the conclusion you want, you alter the evidence.

      • Nick says:

        That’s bullshit Eric. Give me one example. See if you can do it without reference to Steve ‘the red noise generator’ Macintyre’s contribution to the plagiarist Wegman. Or to the concocted claims about hiding a decline…

  13. john byatt says:

    The link that the climate sceptics have is run by this One world government, 911 nutjob, fundamentalist christian, the christian fundamentalist background of the climate sceptics party is obvious basically we are debating creationists.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Hey I can do silly inferences too.

      Since Osama Bin Laden was a strong supporter of climate alarmism, its obvious you guys are all… whatever you are.

    • Ian says:

      John, I think you should stop now – you are divulging too much information. People like Eric and Donald Trump may know too much already. Remember, we pledged allegiance to Al Gore and promised never to divulge our plans for a one-world government (OWG). Eric may eventually work out that we refer to each other as OWGs. Now, time to get back to manipulating (“adjusting”) the CO2 measurements, the sea ice and glacier records and the satellite temperature records

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hidden any declines lately Ian?

        What would you have said if the Heartland emails included a passage like:-

        “I just used Steve McIntyre’s Nature statistical trick to hide the incline in global temperatures?”

        I call double standards.

      • Ian, I forgot to email you my progress report. I recently secured the help of my socialist teacher friends to get 50000 school children with butterfly nets to catch a population of yellow wanderer butterflies. We then drove them 500km to the south and released them. I had a couple of scientist friends on hand to set up a mark recapture trial. They are in the process of writing up their paper on the range shift now. I’ve contacted my mate the editor at the Journal of Applied Entomology and he’s lined up a couple of compliant reviewers. The scientists complained a bit about actually having to do the trial (they just wanted to falsify the data) but I convinced them it would be more realistic if they actually did the experiment. Next week I’m planing on digging up billions of alpine plants so we can report on them running out of altitude refugia.

      • john byatt says:

        Phil Jones wrote the email in 1999, immediately following what still ranks as one of the hottest years on record, and well before the idea of a “slowdown” or “hiatus” or even “decline” in warming gained currency.

        So it can’t have had anything to do with hiding a global temperature decline.

        If it were a scientific idea, the notion that it did would be consigned to the garbage bin of history alongside perpetual motion machines, the steady-state theory of the cosmos and the idea of HIV/Aids as a gay-only disease.

        It’s that wrong.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The decline they were hiding was the Divergence Problem.

          Their attempt to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age from the climate record rested on Mann’s tree ring proxies.

          But when Briffa checked his proxies against the instrumental record, they discovered a problem – the tree rings and thermometers showed opposite trends.

          So Mann sliced off the offending tree ring data, and spliced his temperature series with the instrumental temperatures, to create the false impression that tree rings were a reliable proxy for temperature.

        • Eric, you haven’t read the Mann paper or if you have, you have clearly demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the way science works. You make it sound like there was a big secret or that Mann was being deceptive. If you actually read the paper he clearly points out everything that was done. All the information is there, including the graph description which mentions that it has instrumental data. You are flogging a dead horse and frankly I feel embarrassed for you. If you don’t have the good sense to feel embarrassed then that is really very sad. Your constant referencing of Anthony crybaby Watts is also tiresome. Nobody here takes anything he says seriously. If you want to dispute something you think Mann has done, I recommend citing something scientific or piss off back to the denier den where people equally as idiotic as you will happily confirm your illegitimate, unscientific, lunatic rightwing bias.

      • john byatt says:

        Tree growth is sensitive to temperature. Consequently, tree-ring width and tree-ring density, both indicators of tree growth, serve as useful proxies for temperature. By measuring tree growth in ancient trees, scientists can reconstruct temperature records going back over 1000 years. Comparisons with direct temperature measurements back to 1880 show a high correlation with tree growth. However, in high latitude sites, the correlation breaks down after 1960. At this point, while temperatures rise, tree-ring width shows a falling trend (a decline, if you will). This divergence between temperature and tree growth is called, imaginatively, the divergence problem.

        The divergence problem has been discussed in the peer reviewed literature since the mid 1990s when it was noticed that Alaskan trees were showing a weakened temperature signal in recent decades (Jacoby 1995). This work was broadened in 1998 using a network of over 300 tree-ring records across high northern latitudes (Briffa 1998). From 1880 to 1960, there is a high correlation between the instrumental record and tree growth. Over this period, tree-rings are an accurate proxy for climate. However, the correlation drops sharply after 1960. At high latitudes, there has been a major, wide-scale change in tree-growth over the past few decades.

        However, in high latitude sites, the correlation breaks down after 1960.

        You are becoming a famous idiot eric. your children will be changing their surnames in a decade or so

      • Nick says:

        Eric,the decline to be hidden was in a WMO report graphic,that’s all.

        It was the divergence from observations seen in some tree ring data post 1960 used by Keith Briffa in one paper. Briffa and others documented this decline and wrote up another paper with ideas as to why this divergence appears in some tree data.It’s still being discussed. So it’s all in the publication record. When Briffa’s paper was included in the databy UEA CRU to generate material for a WMO report,among the visuals they needed was a multi-proxy chart of palaeo evidence. In the process of producing that report this incredibly trivial piece of visual massaging came to represent a shining truth that proved AGW was false for many idiots who were only too happy to be manipulated by Watts et al. There’s a psychology term for the reaction: motivated reasoning [along with mental insufficiency].That’s what fills in the inconvenient details for the crazed rejectionist.

        Why did this harmless act become so important ? Because a bunch of non-science propagandists sold the idea that Mann had something to do with and UEA CRU were essentially hiding a real decline in OBSERVED temps–a lie by omission of the real explanation– through repetition to the useful idiots in the media and their readership who keep the misconception alive. Now a lot of people are convinced Mann ‘hid a decline’ as well as ‘made the MWP disappear’ for that and other reasons What is really the case is that it is visible in the graphics but it isn’t as large as what motivated reasoners expect and demand…DESPITE NONE OF THEM DOING ANY RECON WORK OR HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT GETS THEM SO EXERCISED!!!! In what other freakhouse would such absurd behavior be anything other than laughed at????

        None of that data was used by Mann et al 1999 for the famous hockey stick. Mike’s ‘Nature’ trick was adding on observation data to his series…it was the ‘adding on’ that was the technique/trick,but in MBH 99’s case there was no exclusion of data.The data ended on the up,the obs data kept rising. The literal translation of ‘use Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline’ Is: “let’s hide the decline in OUR one line of data in OUR graph by using Mike’s method [demonstrated in ‘Nature’] of adding on the instrumental record to the proxy one in HIS work.” Mann was not hiding a decline in his work. the trick was the adding on,not what it may or may not have concealed

        You and Watts should apologise…or at least get your facts straight from now on,because you two are incapable of apologising,Too much pride ,not enough
        brains. Too much water under the bridge to man up and make some progress on what’s really up.

        I for one am not going to be allowing dim dissemblers to write my history for me. Watts is beneath contempt for harassing Mike Mann,and that’s just one of his shames.

  14. john byatt says:

    The climate sceptics party claim that global warming is all a hoax led by the rothchilds and illuminanti

    see his second link

    conspiracy theorists

  15. john byatt says:

    Eric “The papers references by WUWT represent current working conditions.

    No the paper that watts is discussing is the one i linked to, he is claiming that it is not valid on his own assumptions of what has been done in the past.

    Maybe he will shut down the site for a week while he writes up his paper and presents it for blog review?


  16. Eric Worrall says:

    Here’s another thought John.

    Exhaled breath from humans generally has CO2 levels of 45,000ppm+

    Yet exhaled breath is used in resuscitation, to maintain oxygen levels in people who have suffered cardiac arrest.

    So even in cases where the cardiovascular system is defective, people can still benefit from air which contains 45,000 ppm CO2. They can even be revived to the point where where they regain consciousness (e.g. drowning victims who have stopped breathing often simply wake up after CPR).

    Given that even people with weakened respiration can be sustained and revived at CO2 levels of 45,000ppm+, suggestions that 3000ppm is toxic are utterly implausible.

    • john byatt says:

      You did not claim that 3000ppm was toxic, there was no sugestion of that

      you claimed that Ocean organisms thrive in atmospheric levels of 3000ppm
      the science says that they will not

      do you even know what you are debating here because you come across as being smoking stuff

  17. john byatt says:

    Whatever humans and submarines have to do with your claim that ocean organisms thrived at CO2 levels of 3000ppm i have no idea

    your nonsense claim comes from that goon goddard with two links to papers that do not even address the issue.

    you have obviously not even bothered to read either

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Given that the linked articles indicate humans can operate for extended periods (as in months) at CO2 levels up to 10,000ppm, and be clear headed enough to make reliable decisions about whether to launch nuclear weapons, a suggestion that 3000ppm is toxic enough to cause a mass die off is a nonsense.

      • john byatt says:

        There is a new paper out just last month re making decisions at levels of 2000ppm and 2500ppm concentrations,

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The papers references by WUWT represent current working conditions.

          Either people are quite capable of functioning efficiently for extended periods at CO2 levels up to 10,000ppm, or there are some very scary nuclear submarines out there, piloted by people who are off their faces on CO2 poisoning.

      • john byatt says:

        Thank goodness that this paper came out before some submarine commander actually had to make a yes or no decision,

      • john byatt says:

        There is nothing in the paper about CO2 poisoning, it is about decision making and it overturns assumptions on which current regulations are based

        they are not off their face, you alarmist you, there thank goodness, have been no instances where submarine commanders have had to make a decision on a nuclear strike to date. In fact they do not get to make such a decision, the Commander in chief makes that decision,

        everything you come up with is from either nova watts or goddard and is designed for the mental deficient such as yourself.

        just once in your life try to make an effort to research full information on any subject instead of just parroting the denialist nonsense.

        work to do

  18. john byatt says:

    Eric “But even at 3000ppm, life thrived”.

    Atmospheric carbon levels rose quickly to 3,000 parts per million.

    The rate of this carbon release was faster than before and 54% of

    land and ocean dwelling families were lost.

  19. Uncle Buck says:

    I agree with Blair. “Great Post!”

  20. john byatt says:

    Eric “The paleo record demonstrates thriving shellfish communities at CO2 levels up to 10x current levels.”

    245 million years ago, the third major extinction occurred.

    Permian period climate change of the greenhouse nature, linked

    to plate tectonic movement released huge amounts of magma.

    Atmospheric carbon levels rose quickly to 3,000 parts per million.

    The rate of this carbon release was faster than before and 54% of

    land and ocean dwelling families were lost. Some scientists still

    link this extinction to an asteroid or meteorite impact. Either way

    the carbon levels reversed the flow of the oceans. Life returned to

    the old cycle.

    4) At the end of the Triassic period, roughly 210 million years ago the

    fourth major extinction occurred. Once again Geologists debate,

    but 23% of families were lost. CO2 level 1200ppm

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Much of the Carboniferous, an age of giant forests, averaged 800ppm.

      Commercial indoor growers typically enhance their greenhouse CO2 levels to around 1200ppm, to take advantage of the enhanced plant growth at elevated CO2 levels.

      We have a long way to go before we hit 3000ppm.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric “The paleo record demonstrates thriving shellfish communities at CO2 levels up to 10x current levels.”

        Eric, ignoring what he wrote last then exclaims “We have a long way to go before we hit 3000ppm.”

        Eric “anyone with half a brain can poke holes in it.”

        you are right about the half a brain bit

        • Eric Worrall says:

          3000ppm is no threat to global climate, because we’re never going to hit it.

          But even at 3000ppm, life thrived.

          I thought it simpler to challenge the other figures you were waving around.

  21. john byatt says:

    Educating Eric,

    Dr Schmidt of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences said: “Ocean acidification has happened before sometimes with large consequences for marine ecosystems. But within the last 300 million years, never has the rate of ocean acidification been comparable to the ongoing acidification.

    She added that the most comparable event, most likely 10 times slower than the current acidification, was 55 million years ago.

    “At that time, species responded to the warming, acidification, change in nutrient input and loss of oxygen – the same processes that we now see in our oceans. The geological record shows changes in species distribution, changes in species composition, changes in calcification and growth and in a few cases extinction,” she said.

    “Our current acidification rates are unparalleled in Earth history and lead most ecosystems into unknown territory.”

    That rate of change was echoed by Dr Claudine Hauri, an oceanographer from the University of Alaska Fairbanks: “The waters up and down the coast from our conference site here in Monterey Bay are particularly prone to the effects of ocean acidification. The chemistry of these waters is changing at such a rapid pace that organisms now experience conditions that are different from what they have experienced in the past. And within about 20 or 30 years, the chemistry again will be different from that of even today.”

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Ecosystems already exist in which members of the same species as existing general ocean populations thrive in far higher than normal CO2 levels.

      If, and this is a big if, the general population experiences any stress, existing adaptions for acid resistance will simply spread rapidly through the general population.

      The Ocean acidification scare is baseless nonsense.

  22. john byatt says:

    This has to be “dumb arse” quote of the day

    ” natural selection will simply favour genes for acid tolerance which are already widely available”.,

    To late eric it is already underway on US west coast

    The decline in pH will likely disrupt the food web in many ways. It is making it harder for some animals, such as tiny pteropods and corals, to form their shells out of calcium carbonate, while other creatures whose blood chemistry is altered become disoriented and lose their ability to evade predators.

    To study what is happening off the West Coast, Gretchen Hofmann, a professor of marine biology at the University of California at Santa Barbara, has recruited everyone from sea-urchin divers to Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement officials.

    She calls it “an all-hands-on-deck moment in our country, and it’s happening before our eyes.”

  23. john byatt says:

    Applying Eric’s “pH can bounce 1.4 or more

    okay, currently organism tolerates pH 7.6 to 9….. 1.4 bounce

    the claim therefore is that the organism should tolerate pH 7.2 to 8..6

    as pH drops, you lack a logical thought process Eric

    • Eric Worrall says:

      No, I’m saying that organisms are far more tolerant to PH change than you are making out.

      Organisms in PH stable areas will at worst be displaced by more PH tolerant cousins.

      Organisms in PH areas which move outside the extreme of current tolerance will simply be restocked from the plentiful champaign reef gene stock – from plentiful ocean genetic reservoirs which already tolerate PH levels far more extreme than anything predicted by the models you presented.

      There is a continuum of ocean organisms which can handle any PH level we could conceivably throw at them – worst case, natural selection will simply favour genes for acid tolerance which are already widely available.

      Your ocean acidification “emergency” is a crock.

      • john byatt says:

        Yes some of the bad algae will do rather well, along with jellyfish

        moving goalposts will still not help you, as acidification is currently dropping many times faster than

        organisms have previously had to cope with .

        we would really like to maintain reefs with fish eric

        and what about the shellfish larvae?


        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nonsense John.

          As you know for most of Earth’s geological history CO2 levels have been up to 10x higher than today. Shellfish are not a recent development, they are among the most ancient marine multicellular lifeforms, they can clearly tolerate much higher CO2 levels than the present day.

          As there are shellfish living in champaign reef environments, and every environment in between, there is clearly a readily available reservoir of genetic adaptions to acid environments, should such adaptions be necessary.

          if, and this is a big if, the oceans become as acid as you say, the evidence is life will simply adapt, as it always has. Already available acid tolerance adaptions shall simply spread throughout existing populations.


    • Eric Worrall says:

      Where is the problem? My fish tank used to endure swings of PH of 1 or more without any problem. Normal tidal activity can cause large swings in PH, as can different local mineral composition, different weather, and any local volcanic activity or natural CO2 leaks.

      I know you guys are disappointed that your CO2 scare has failed (not a single mention in the recent US presidential debates), but you’re going to have to try harder than a minute shift in PH to find a replacement.

      Here are some helpful suggestions from Climate Depot, a collation of the market research into new scares being performed by your fellow travellers, to get you started.

      • john byatt says:

        Freshwater fish and plants tend to be more tolerant of lower pH and wider pH changes overall because fresh water contains low alkalinity, which means that the water chemistry does not minimize pH changes (i.e., it does not have the “buffering capacity”) the way that seawater chemistry does. The natural variability of pH in lakes and rivers is also higher than in the ocean. Freshwater organisms have evolved special mechanisms that allow them to thrive in these more acidic and variable conditions; for example, freshwater plants may benefit from higher CO2. In saltwater aquaria, corals and fish require a more narrowly balanced pH and owners often add carbonate “hardeners” to increase the water’s alkalinity and maintain the pH between 8.0 and 8.4. Devices called “calcium reactors” bubble CO2 gas through crushed calcium carbonate (usually crushed coral), which releases calcium and carbonate ions into the salt water, providing the high-alkalinity, calcium-rich waters that aquarium corals and other calcifying organisms need to continue healthy growth. Unfortunately, these types of devices cannot be used to solve ocean acidification on a global scale, because of the vast amounts of crushed calcium carbonate that are required to carry out the process in the world’s oceans. — Helen Findlay, Lord Kingsland Fellow, Plymouth Marine Laboratory, UK; Joan Kleypas, Scientist III, National Center for Atmospheric Research, USA; Michael Holcomb, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Centre Scientifique de Monaco, Monaco

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nonsense – sea water PH is highly variable. As the following peer reviewed paper shows, daily sea water PH in coastal areas can bounce up and down by 1.4 or more.

          The kind of tiny shifts in PH you are basing your scare on, even assuming the models are accurate, would be lost in the noise of daily changes.

          Nice try, but you’ll have to do better than that. Even you should be able to see that ocean acidification simply hasn’t got the pulling power that the global warming scare had in its heyday.

      • john byatt says:

        Marano ” the next scare will be that plastic is a problem”


      • john byatt says:

        That should be Morano as in moron

        • Eric Worrall says:

          We’re just trying to guess which way you guys will jump next. The global warming crisis had a good run, but noone important turns up to climate change conferences anymore.

          Its just not interesting enough anymore – there are just too many dodgy predictions we can use to ridicule you, or any politician who tries to pretend they take it seriously.

      • john byatt says:

        This is the old baby bath water variable,

        baby bath water can quite safely range from 35DEG to 38DEG, that is three degrees

        So raising the bath temperature range from 38DEG to 41DEG should not be a problem according to your logic

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Your numbers are way off.

          I’m going to assume your ridiculously exaggerated analogy was due to over enthusiasm, rather than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

          Hopefully you’ll do the decent thing and offer an analogy which is more in keeping with the scale of the numbers we are discussing.

      • Nick says:

        Climate change didn’t get a mention in the presidential debates because the candidates are more scared of the electorate than reality…it is the silly season there.

        Marc Morano doesn’t fear AGW as he can hide behind the First Amendment. He’s an all-round liar,and will never fail to find a patron in need.

  24. john byatt says:

    Italian scientists jailed for underestimating earthquake,

    IPCC underestimates future climate change

    pseudo sceptic scientists dishonestly claim that there is no future threat

    Future court cases?

  25. john byatt says:


    The inability of world governments to agree on and implement effective mitigation response policy for anthropogenic climate change has resulted in the continuation of an exponential growth in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) that averages 3.1 per cent per year since 1870. With the exception of 2009, world GHG emission levels surpassed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2000) worst case scenario every year since 2004. Because of increasing temperatures due to GHG emissions a suite of amplifying feedback mechanisms, such as massive methane leaks from the sub-sea Arctic Ocean, have engaged and are probably unstoppable. These processes, acting in concert with the biological and physical inertia of the Earth system in responding to atmospheric loading of GHGs, along with economic, political and social barriers to emission reduction, currently place Earth’s climate trajectory well within the IPCC’s A1FI future climate change scenario. There is a rapidly diminishing chance of altering this trajectory as time goes on. There is also now a very real risk of sudden climate change. The pace of this quickly advancing situation, along with our scientific understanding of it, has substantially outstripped policy discussion. This article examines current primary science literature and data on today’s climate condition in a policy relevant context.

    Policy Implications

     An all out shift to a broad range of adaptive response policies is urgently needed. Climate change will force reevaluations of present day governance agreements on trade, finance, food supply, security, development, environment, and similar sectors.

     Easy to understand scientific data driven visualizations and culturally appropriate interpretations of probable future conditions are needed to facilitate realistic adaptive policy responses from all levels of governance.

     Multilateral policies for an international crop seed cooperative could significantly lessen the impacts of crop failures and low yields, reducing the risk of famine and economic effects of unstable food prices. There is a need to store a large enough volume of crop seed varieties to allow for quick switching of varieties one year to the next based on dynamic forecasts of seasonal climates.

     Harmonization of international, national, subnational, and local policies for the orderly resettlement of coastal populations should begin now. This will become a chronic condition involving very large numbers of people. Improved and coordinated policies are needed for refugee services and related issues of migration and integration as well as planning for land use change and infrastructure development.

  26. john byatt says:

    The models look fine from were i am standing, you can even see how ENSO affects the yearly data, this is calender year data, the actual warmest twelve months on record since 1880 was december 2009 thru november 2010 inclusive,

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The confidence band is a joke – anything from +0.1c anomaly to +0.8c anomaly is within the 95% confidence band.

      • john byatt says:

        Yet the models express exactly what is taking place, unless of course you do not believe that El Nino adds to years temperature above trend, maybe you do but reject that la nina subtracts from the trend

      • Nick says:

        That’s why you have to need long data sets: we know factors causing considerable annual and interannual variability will not disappear simply because extra GHGs raise the average height of the equilibrium radiative layer. We will always have weather,aerosols and erratic climate features like ENSO,plus a solar cycle influence.

        For the umpteenth time….

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The models are a massive spread bet. The 95% confidence band covers almost a degree of divergence, even from the supplied graph – and there are plenty more models, or plenty of available adjustments, if the 95% confidence band is broached. It only makes sense if you are a believer.

          You might find the following Wikipedia article interesting. The Epicyclic theory of Cosmology – essentially the Earth Centric theory – actually produced relatively good predictions, which is why it lasted so long. By adding additional epicycles to correct for known defects, medieval philosophers could predict the position of the planets to within a few percent.

          But the positions of the planets kept going slightly wrong – drifting away from their predicted positions.

          Instead of abandoning the theory, the philosophers simply added more epicycles. By the time of Galileo, there was a significant cottage industry keeping the by then horrendously complex models in line with observations.

          Galileo swept all that away by proposing a simpler model. No wonder they wanted to torture him to death.

      • john byatt says:

        “The models are a massive spread bet. The 95% confidence band covers almost a degree of divergence, even from the supplied graph – and there are plenty more models, or plenty of available adjustments, if the 95% confidence band is broached. It only makes sense if you are a believer.”

        the confidence band has not been breached so your comment is hypothetical and therefore does not reflect the reality,

        and then you try “Look squirrel”

        of course models will cover a range, haven’t you heard of aerosols, ENSO, and solar cycles? did you really believe that temps were just predicted to continue up every year despite other influences, the models do not predict that the temps will go up every year, show both downward and upward movements.

        your failure once again is a lack of any understanding whatsoever,

        models do not predict warming

        physics does

        models only try to capture rate of warming including influences of ENSO Solar and aerosols variables.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Amazing how Antarctica can be losing so much ice, yet at the same time conditions there are so cold that Antarctic sea ice extent hit a record this year.

    • Ian Smith says:

      Brother Eric, I suggest you attend a course on climatology where the differences between sea ice, grounded ice, precipitation, ablation and net accumulation are all explained. That will cure your amazement.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I see – so your view is that although Antarctica is getting colder, and sea ice extent is increasing, it is reasonable to believe that a high level of Antarctic ice loss is occurring.

        Yes, I can see how that makes sense.

      • Nick says:

        “Antarctica is getting colder”. No. about a third of the highest surface area in east Antarctica is seeing abarely significant cooling. The rest is warming,with a good part of that at significant rates.

        “Sea ice extent is increasing” Not in summer,which it would do if Antarctica was getting net colder. The winter increase is barely significant,and can be explained by climate change processes,many factors,often convergent: warmer air>more moisture potential>enhanced snowfall. More preciptation>upper layer salinity change cool top layer,warmer below,less mixing>better ice forming potential in more stratified waters.Enhanced circum-Antarctic winds>creating more polynyas> polynyas enhance ice formation. Antarctica is very cold and elevated:some warming will enhance moisture potential,increase precip as snow in some higher places,while margins are net warming,increasing rate of ice discharge. Warmer sea waters are thinning floating ice tongues from below at Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers. Just as they have drastically reduced many Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves over the last fifty years.

        You are not ready to see how anything ‘makes sense’ until you follow Ian’s advice.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I see – so warming in the arctic melts the ice, while warming in the Antarctic causes more ice to accumulate.

          If the world starts to cool, what would we expect to see? more arctic ice, and less Antarctic ice?

      • john byatt says:

        Latest science re Antarctica sea ice extent is that it is still within a range of natural variability, not related to ozone hole, Antarctic itself however is losing mass as the paper posted stated, only adding 1mm per year to SLR at present, main problem is that the loss is coming from an area that is subjected to ocean heat from global circulation patterns, this does not bode well for future ice loss.

      • Ian Smith says:

        Yes!! — I think brother Eric may be catching on !!

        A cooler world will favour an increase in Arctic SEA ICE yet favour a decrease in Antarctic GROUNDED ice.

        Now, I know you are going to ask me why. Instead I suggest you follow my advice and enrol in a climatology course where the answer will be given and you will be amazed at how simple, but non-intuitive, this is. It may even convert you to our faith !!

      • Nick says:

        Eric,less of the flippant replies and back to your study;)

  27. john byatt says:

    For anyone who thinks Eric may be a Poe

    They walk among us

    this bloke almost has a weekly letter to the editor in the Sunshine Coast Daily
    Editor is a happy clapper

    writes one week that the Earth is 10,000 years old, the next week on climate science

    Today SCD

    “I have worked daily with “green house gases” since 1949 including CFC”s (now banned) and i say they don’t do in nature what these “scientist” say.

    At least as many “unpublished scientists agree with me, but you’re not hearing from them”

    FRANK DAVIS Nambour


  28. john byatt says:

    Here is a great source of weekly news via email

  29. john byatt says:

    Hopefully before the Arctic disappears ,


  30. Eric Worrall says:

    An article in Britain’s greenest mainstream newspaper, The Guardian – “Wind solar ethical investments to avoid”.

    Perhaps China will rescue them with their new carbon tax.

  31. barry says:

    would be funny if someone sprayed over that ad with “We’ll immediately legislate to f*** the planet”

  32. Leaps says:

    Yes you can never win an argument with an idiot, they take you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    I really would not bother feeding that troll. Life is too short.

  33. john byatt says:

    You have all heard of the indian named “two dogs fucking”,

    I reckon if I was indian my name would be “argues with idiots”

  34. john byatt says:

    Worth a read

    Tropical Collapse in Early Triassic Caused by Lethal Heat: Extreme Temperatures Blamed for ‘Dead Zone’ 50 to 60 degrees C in the tropics

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Incredible how all those Early Triassic creatures developed an industrial civilisation we never noticed.

      Or could it be the Triassic warming was due to natural variation?

      Wouldn’t that make the modern warming well within the bounds of previous natural events?

      • john byatt says:


      • john byatt says:

        “Wouldn’t that make the modern warming well within the bounds of previous natural events?”

        Gregory J. Retallack1,†
        + Author Affiliations

        Department of Geological Sciences, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA

        Proxies of past CO2 and climate over the past 300 m.y. now reveal multiple global climate change events in unprecedented detail. Evidence for past CO2 spikes comes from expanded and refined stomatal index data of fossil Ginkgo and related leaves. New evidence for synchronous climatic change comes from paleosols in Montana, Utah, and neighboring states. Each CO2 spike was coeval with unusually clayey, red, and decalcified paleosols that can be traced throughout the Colorado Plateau. Spikes in atmospheric CO2 also were coeval with increases in paleosol alkali depletion as an indication of high temperature, and spikes in paleosol base depletion and depth to calcic horizons as indications of high precipitation. In the Colorado Plateau, times of warmer climate were also more humid, perhaps due to the greater moisture potential of warmer air. Seasonality of climate did not increase during warm-wet spikes. The Mesozoic greenhouse was not persistently hot with cool spells, but warm with hot flashes. These data furnish power laws predicting the sensitivity and magnitude of change in mean annual temperature (MAT) and mean annual precipitation (MAP) due to rising CO2 in a mid-latitude, mid-continental region. The magnitude of the coming anthropogenic greenhouse pales in comparison with past greenhouse spikes at times of global mass extinctions.

      • john byatt says:

        WE are getting back to 20 million years ago

        A slightly shocking finding,” Tripati said, “is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different.”
        Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA’s Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new.
        Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said.
        “During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today,” Tripati said. “Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount.”

        the end permian was 250 millions years ago

  35. john byatt says:


    Since 2000, an estimated total of 420 billion tonnes CO2
    was cumulatively emitted due to human activities
    (including deforestation). Scientific literature suggests
    that limiting average global temperature rise to 2 °C
    above pre-industrial levels – the target internationally
    adopted in UN climate negotiations – is possible if Summary | 7
    cumulative emissions in the 2000–2050 period do not
    exceed 1,000 to 1,500 billion tonnes CO2
    . If the current
    global increase in CO2
    emissions continues, cumulative
    emissions will surpass this total within the next two

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Emissions reduction policies are an abject failure, as the hilarious spectre of “green” Europe turning back to king coal demonstrates.

      If I’m right, nothing will happen. If you are right, rather than frittering your energy in pointlessly campaigning for emission reduction efforts which are doomed to fail, you should be focussing on adaption projects.

      • Nick says:

        Reducing emissions is one of the adaptions we will make.Mitigation and adaption are not mutually exclusive.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          My point was centrally planned mitigation in Europe is a disaster. Europe genuinely takes mitigation seriously, and they have failed to make it work. Europe’s economy is a mess compared to the rest of the world, and their CO2 emissions are soaring, thanks to perverse incentives in their energy policy.

          Unless you have some other ideas for how mitigation might work, mitigation is a dead end – a complete failure of an idea.

      • Nick says:

        You are making premature judgements.While I am disappointed about what seems a precipitate move from nuclear,a simple coal v nuclear equation is not the sum total of power gen reality. Solar and wind have been poorly critiqued by contrarians,and that may have steered you up a dead-end. You can see the effect they are having on peak demand in Australia,despite the misleadings from the networks owners. An multi-factorial change is occurring. Price rise is stimulating restraint and smarter use,solar,solar hot water and wind have made an entrance,the effects of the Home Insulation Scheme are coming home and networks have been upgraded. We’re smartening up on the domestic front,helped by government recognition of at least part of the reality.

        Their determination to sell any coal possible offshore remains in sad contrast,as coal and union lobbies hold sway. And not simply because of CO2. It’s a landscape disaster with rare woodland slated for clearing,and conflict over valuable agricultural land. Byproducts of mining are toxic and mobile.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Solar is a grotesquely unfair means for middle class people with big houses to force poor people to pay for their electricity bills.

          Without market distorting subsidies, power and other alternative “solutions” would disappear overnight. Just look at the alternative energy investment crash in Spain since the Spanish government stopped paying subsidies.

      • Nick says:

        Face it Eric,solar is very useful and thousands of square kilometres of perfectly angled roof surface are waiting to turn the incident energy into useable power. It’s folly to reject it. It’s folly to ignore direct and indirect subsidies to FF use while rejecting solar’s potential. Coal mines with lives of ten to thirty years attract thrilling financing moves,state subsidies,make big holes,damage aquifers,mobilise dust and toxic byproduct,then close with rehabilitation of varied success. The coal is burnt,energy extracted to some degree and CO2 dumped heedlessly into the ocean-land-atmosphere system.There are subsidies along every step of that journey.

        Enough of the crocodile tears for the poor subsidising the middle-class. The rich don’t feel the effects of power prices,it represents a very small part of their expenses. The middle-class are not getting much of a subsidy anymore. The poor have been given tax relief and subsidy in exchange for their relative lack of mobility. For a few years the combination of federal state and local government incentives made energy saving technology accessible a long way down the wage scale. What other cliches are you copying from neo-lib talking points? Oh,there’s ‘market-distorting subsidies’…markets are full of redistributive acts,many of them because we are forced to compensate for entrepreneurial freedoms of the commons. There are poorly constructed subsidies and there are good ones,but we cannot operate without intervening in the process. You don’t know how lucky you are that the hell of unhindered market behavior is not visited on you.

        There is a bit more going on in the Spanish economy than you allow,and a bit more than just the solar industry suffering.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Perhaps you are not aware of how renewables tariffs are paid for.

          In the UK at least, the tariffs are paid for by forcing utility companies to buy a substantial amount of their energy from renewables.

          Since the renewables cost more, the renewables companies have to pass the extra cost on to consumers.

          Except consumers with solar installations have an advantage – since consumers with solar installations can contribute to the renewables which power companies have to buy, their power bills are offset by the amount of renewable energy they can pump into the system.

          Since the tariff they receive for renewable electricity is higher than the tariff they pay for electricity they consume from the grid, people who have solar installations effectively pass their electricity bills on to people who don’t.

          People who don’t have solar installations are generally either too poor to install them, live in flats (i.e. don’t have access to roof space), or live in houses which are too small to use as the base of solar installations.

          Mr Middle Class has heavily discounted bills, courtesy of poor people who have to pay for his electricity.

          Job well done – a brutally regressive stealth tax, supported by people who believe they are friends of the poor.

  36. I agree with Eric Worall you highlight the fact that the economy is negatively impacted by the carbon tax with no concrete proof it will reduce or affect climate.

    The statement you highlight by Andrew Bolt could not be more correct: “Just follow the money. China is buying access to our coal deposits because it plans to use more coal, not less.Now consider our stupidity. While China plans to use more Australian coal, Labor and its Greens allies want to force us to ultimately use none, by hitting us with a carbon dioxide tax that China has zero intention of imposing itself.If it all works out to plan, China will use the cheap Australian coal that Australia will forbid itself.”

    He makes the obvious point why should we not burn our own coal but sell it to the Chinese and other countries only so they flourish economically whilst the average Aussie taxpayer is financially harmed by this ideological levy. Big error putting this statement in your pro-climate science blog because it undermines your argument before the comments even start. I like it!

  37. john byatt says:

    You would not think that one would need to misrepresent Curry but indeed that is just what Rose has done in the daily mail piece of crap

    Judith curry

    “I have no idea where the ‘deeply flawed’ came from, I did not use these words in any context that Rose should be quoted (perhaps I used them somewhere on my blog?)”

  38. john byatt says:

    Lomborg misrepresents press release, in the Australian obviously

    here is the actual press release from vulnerable states

  39. Eric Worrall says:

    Dont take my word for it – here is Phil Jones stating that previous climate trends are not significantly different from today’s.

    There is no evidence the current warming is any different from previous warmings. The fact it seems disconnected from a CO2 increase of around 10% shows CO2 is not an important forcing.

    • john byatt says:

      try to keep up Eric

      “a CO2 increase of around 10% shows CO2 is not an important forcing”

      we have a significantly higher increase than 10% since 1880

      where do you dig this nonsense up?

      current forcing for CO2e is about 1.7wM2, @ 391ppm
      forcing for double CO2E is about 3.7wM2 @ 560ppm

      Meanwhile the ocean is gaining heat, the arctic is in a death spiral and we have eric and co all shoving their heads in the sand yelling that it is not happening.

      without the misinformation swallowed up by Eric and other deniers we would have acted years ago,

      Eric you are a part of the problem that is now placing millions of lives of the worlds poorest at high risk,

      .Don’t delay climate deal, plead island countries

      eff you replies eric,

      • Eric Worrall says:

        The Maldives holding a session of parliament underwater was photogenic propaganda and all that, but their concern for imminent inundation seems to include a massive investment in new tourist infrastructure, and a new airport. A cynic like me might suggest its more a case of corrupt third world politicians putting their hand out for any cash they can scrounge from delusional westerners, but hey, maybe thats just me.

        As for your global warming crisis, there hasn’t been any significant warming for 16 years. And the series you presented shows no sign of a “carbon footprint” – the trend is essentially unchanged from the end of the little ice age in the 1850s.

        Just out of curiosity though, what is your solution to “deniers” like me throwing sand in the works of the policies you are advocating? I felt like you were building towards something, but didn’t quite climax. A few of your fellow travellers have suggested ugly possibilities such as locking us all up, locking up our leaders, or holding climate trials after the crisis bites. Just curious to see what your take on it is.

      • john byatt says:

        You will have enough problems explaining your stupidity to your own children eric
        IT was only last year that the UK met confirmed the warming since 1995, now you are all yelling but what about from August 1 1997?

        a few years from now and you will all be claiming that there has been no warming since last thursday week.

      • barry says:

        1997 was a powerful El Nino year. Temperatures shot up 0.4C higher than normal and fell back down again.

        It’ll take a few years until rising CO2 makes the abnormal 1997 levels a normal occurance.

      • Nick says:

        Warming trends remain within the spread of predictions. You cannot claim otherwise if you handle the data honestly.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          A more correct way of reviewing the situation is that global warming remains within the spread bet of predictions – almost any warming trend, from Hansen’s “boiling ocean” near vertical climbs to a near flatline, has a corresponding model scenario.

          There’s an old horse racing scam in which you convince a set of marks that you have a perfect horse race system. You start with a large group of marks, and divide them into groups. You pick a race, and send each group a different tip on which horse will win.

          The next week, you do the same thing, but only with the marks who received the winning tip from last week – you divide the winning group into subgroups, and send each subgroup a different tip for a winner.

          After a few weeks, by only moving forward with the subgroup who received a winning tip, you are left with a small group of marks who have only ever received winning tips from you. At this point you hit them with the sting – they have to pay for next week’s tip.

          The alarmists have gone one better than this old horse racing scam. Instead of having to discard the group which received the wrong tip, they have whittled their original audience down to people who believe that having one right tip in the midst of a vast set of wrong tips proves their predictions are reliable.

          I’ll leave it to you to figure out what characteristics a group which believes such nonsense must share.

      • Nick says:

        Models are to estimate trends under varying emission and counter forcing scenarios. Then,multiple runs under one chosen scenario will produce considerable variation just as a real group of Earths would from initial conditions. That’s because they capture the chaotic element in weather evolution. All the runs produce different evolutions within long term trends. These may look like ‘wrong tips’ to you,but your analogy is crap.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          My analogy stands. You can’t claim that models are valid because “climate is within the range of model predictions” if your range of predictions covers almost every imaginable scenario.

          At the very least you should stop claiming the science is settled.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nick, what you are telling me is you have swallowed a load of gobbledegook, and now believe in the predictive value of models which cannot predict anything of value.

          Regardless of whether you like my analogy, it simply isn’t a prediction, if you cover a wide range of possibilities, then pull the model out of the hat which happens to be similar to what actually happened. And it certainly isn’t settled science.

          Quantum physics is also inherently chaotic, but instead of saying “that electron could be anywhere”, scientists have created rigorous models which have contained the chaos, and which allow useful devices such as transistors to be built, despite the chaotic elements of the quantum world.

          Their models produce useful predictions.

      • Nick says:

        I have never claimed “the science is settled”..that was easily cleared up,wasn’t it?

        The publicised declaration was that the science is “sufficiently” settled to suggest proceeding with responses,whether or not they are ultimately politically possible. I agree,as much as an old horticulturalist’s opinion is worth.

        Climate models produce useful predictions. All early theoreticians got the sign of the change correct ,when accounting for other forcings to the best of their past understanding.

        Broecker,Hansen,other early workers over 30 years ago with varying sensitivity estimates, are very close to observations.

        Ensemble hindcasts with more complex GCMs track very nicely from way back.

        Climate models are tools that really will not prove or disprove AGW theory,because the theory is not model derived or simply surface temperature focussed. What the theory predicts from physics and direct and indirect observation is that there is a CO2 sensitivity,that their are feedbacks both ways that are varying in time and due to their interactivity,that net feedback is positive,that change through out the system will be seen despite expected short term variation [cooling stratosphere,rising tropopause,cooling upper trop,warming mid and lower trop,enhanced high latitude warming,enhanced atmospheric moisture ,Hadley cell expansion,warming will not be even,warming will be faster over land,cryosphere will change with lags,ocean pH change,SLR etc,etc]. these are all theory predictions which have been observed to become realities…NOT JUST THE PROGRESS OF THE SURFACE TEMP METRIC..which is what you seem convinced is the only wiggly line that does or undoes the theory. Why,Eric?

        Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 should help you see past known secular non GHG influences to more of the CO2 signal.

  40. john byatt says:

    LOOK what happens even when you only put back the eight months from 1997 that the mail cut off

    Now HADCRUT assume that the arctic is only warming as fast as the rest of the globe for their series

    GISS assumes that the Arctic is warming as fast as nearest stations for their data

    both data sets underestimate total warming but pick up the trend, which is what global warming is all about, not about record years which are 2005 and 2010 tied for first.

    the warming continues

    • Eric Worrall says:

      What warming? Even Phil Jones et al are admitting there has been very little warming for 16 years. As former green hero James Lovelock said, Hansen and the other alarmists made a mistake.

      • john byatt says:

        Eric tries to walk down the up escalator.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          1980s was supposed to be the big breakout, when CO2 began to utterly dominate other forcings.

          All you are showing me is natural warming – no sign of a big spike from CO2. No global emergency. Nothing to worry about.

          The lack of warming is why you are losing former supporters like Lovelock.

      • john byatt says:

        So now it is warming but it is natural

        pathetic eric

        the warming continues from CO2 at between .15DegC and .19DegC per decade depending on which data set is used,

        what makes me laugh is that a few years ago all the deniers were claiming that Phil jones had doctored the graph, now it is the only graph they refer to, not even understanding the limitations,

        Hadcrut shows that 8 of the past 10 years are the warmest since 1880 which is the modern record,

        What do you find so hard about understanding the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect?

        you have fifty years of science to catch up on


        • Eric Worrall says:

          The problem with the CO2 / greenhouse effect is it was happening before the modern CO2 spike.

          Temperature series from the 1800s and early 1900s show similar warming trends, well before global CO2 levels shifted significantly from pre-industrial levels.

          The world hasn’t warmed for 16 years, despite an increase of CO2 of around 10%, because CO2 is not driving the climate. A 10% increase in CO2 has simply not made any difference.

          And if a 10% increase in CO2 cannot shift global temperatures, then CO2 is not a threat to global climate stability.

          The spike when positive feedback is supposed to take hold simply has not happened, and shows no sign of happening.

      • barry says:

        “The spike when positive feedback is supposed to take hold simply has not happened, and shows no sign of happening.”

        No-one ever claimed such a thing would happen. What will happen is continued warming as we have seen in recent decades and if that continues it will eventually add up to several degrees.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The problem with this position is the “continued warming” started before CO2 rose appreciably, which suggests that the warming is natural – the world has been warming in fits and starts, at the same gentle overall pace from around 1850, the end of the little ice age.

          And you are wrong about there being no predictions of accelerated warming. We are still bumping below NASA GISS director James Hansen’s “Scenario C”, a scenario based on all CO2 emissions stopping around the year 2000. His predictions were wrong.

      • Nick says:

        Phil Jones did not ‘admit’ anything about the global trend except that ,at the time of his statement in an interview that was so shamefully and repeatedly misrepresented, 95% statistical significance could not be claimed. It was significant at the 94% level.

        Meanwhile ,Lovelock must have a crystal ball to have seen the outcome of reality versus Hansen.The old chap admitted he’d been a bit doomy,and wanted to finger a few others for being forthright. But projections have a while to play out.

        Your claims that CO2 is not driving climate are just chum,answered a million times in a million fora….once more,CO2 rise and temperature rise do not rise in annual lockstep because the relationship is indirect and mediated by natural variation. If you expect them to be closely coupled you have not been paying attention to the science you feel compelled to critique.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          There seems to be an awful lot of natural variation swamping that elusive carbon signal – more than any of the alarmists anticipated.

          It will be interesting to see how they explain away another 40 year flat period, which this current pause could well turn out to be.

      • john byatt says:

        Hansen et al, 1988

        Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2ºC for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3ºC) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not exactly the same as the different scenarios used. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower).
        The trends for the period 1984 to 2011 (the 1984 date chosen because that is when these projections started), scenario B has a trend of 0.28+/-0.05ºC/dec (95% uncertainties, no correction for auto-correlation). For the GISTEMP and HadCRUT3, the trends are 0.18+/-0.05 and 0.17+/-0.04ºC/dec. For reference, the trends in the AR4 models for the same period have a range 0.21+/-0.16 ºC/dec (95%).

        As we stated before, the Hansen et al ‘B’ projection is running warm compared to the real world (exactly how much warmer is unclear). As discussed in Hargreaves (2010), while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change). However, the use of this comparison to refine estimates of climate sensitivity should be done cautiously, as the result is strongly dependent on the magnitude of the assumed forcing, which is itself uncertain. Recently there have been some updates to those forcings, and so my previous attempts need to be re-examined in the light of that data and the uncertainties (particular in the aerosol component). However, this is a complicated issue, and requires more space than I really have here to discuss, so look for this in an upcoming post.

        Overall, given the latest set of data points, we can conclude (once again) that global warming continues.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Thats a real dog at my homework excuse if I ever heard one.

          Struggling to explain why CO2 forcing is not causing the warming they expected, they trot out the spectre of a powerful aerosol forcing which somehow miraculously manages to almost exactly counteract the powerful CO2 forcing.

          A simpler explanation would be that both the aerosols and CO2 are having bugger all effect, which avoids the need to gloss over the need for a miraculous counterbalance between the two alleged forcings.

      • Nick says:

        Eric, your struggle to understand competing forcings–a concept clearly laid out even in the SPMs of IPCC reports– is the struggle that should concern you. The physics says that,given addition of persisent GHGS to an atmosphere,the system mean temperature will rise. It’s a given underlying fact. Nothing will ultimately suppress the expression as temperature rise of long term radiative imbalance…unless a countering forcing with the same persistence emerges as would happen if the sun dropped into a considerably quieter state than yet seen.

        You think that the scientific community should be embarrassed that nature is not utterly conforming with models,while they have always told anyone capable of listening and understanding that variation is everpresent.

        I know you’re disappointed that GT isn’t rising neatly. In the meantime,you’ll have to comfort yourself with continuing sea-level rise and shrinking of the cryosphere as lagging indicators proceed a little more smoothly.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I wish you could see how silly that argument is. Essentially you are saying we don’t mind that the observations are disagreeing with the theory, because we have faith in the theory.

      • Nick says:

        You know it’s actually a more complex idea to put it that CO2 and aerosols are having bugger all effect. It would mean a new physics.If CO2 doesnt work,is IR blind,then we have Snowball Earth .But the old physics works,mate.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          The alarmists are the ones throwing around unproven assumptions Nick.

          CO2 forcing alone produces around 1c / doubling of CO2. Climate sensitivities of 3c+ are based on unproven assumptions about water vapour and cloud behaviour – assumptions which are rapidly heading towards falsification, courtesy of the current flat period in global temperatures.

      • Nick says:

        You’re going ’round in circles,and spinning at the same time,old son.

        The observations are not disagreeing with the theory,as has been explained to you.

  41. john byatt says:

    You have to love them

    Daily mail ” met office data shows warming stopped 16 years ago

    deniers, yeh team even the met office data proves it. lets hear it for the data.

    Met Office. the daily mail story is a load of crap the temp has risen over the past 16 years as the data reveals

    deniers, the data is not reliable,

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The models have been falsified, according to the CRU and MET’s own previous statements.

      What we are seeing now is the magic part of climate science, in which they try to rewrite history, to avoid falsification of their faith based beliefs.

      • john byatt says:

        As usual watts has led you all up the garden path.

        the met office has stated that even with the daily mail cherry picked start and stop dates there is still an upward trend, now the cretins all think that is the actual trend

        Foster& Rahmstorf 2011

        All five records show similar changes, including an upward trend over the 32 years studied. They also show large fluctuations, more so for the satellite data than the surface data. This has spurred numerous false claims of silly things like “global warming stopped in 1998″ (due to the large spike from the powerful el Nino of that year). Large fluctuations also make it more difficult to establish the statistical significance of trend, leading to meaningless statements about “no statistically significant warming for 15 years” (or 10 years, or 7, or since last Thursday).

  42. john byatt says:

    Well if you would educate yourself and spend less time at WTFIUWT

    . The trend has shown an increase in Antarctic sea ice insolation of about 53 TW, and a decrease in Arctic sea ice insolation of about 329 TW. That’s over 6 times as great.

    If we spread 53 TW over the entire earth we get a global average of 0.10 W/m^2. So even if the difference between ice and ocean albedo were equal to 1 in the southern hemisphere (i.e., Antarctic sea ice were perfectly reflective while ocean was completely absorbing) the net global climate forcing would amount to -0.10 W/m^2. But sea ice isn’t perfectly reflecting, not even in the southern hemisphere where the sea ice is often snow-covered, and ocean is not perfectly absorbing. If the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) albedo difference between sea-ice-covered and open ocean areas is 0.2, then the global climate forcing from Antarctic sea ice changes would be about -0.02 W/m^2.

    If we spread 329 TW over the entire earth we get a global average of 0.65 W/m^2. If the TOA albedo difference between sea ice and open ocean is 0.2, then the global climate forcing from Arctic sea ice changes would be about +0.13 W/m^2.

  43. john byatt says:

    Another Worral classic to add to the list

    Aliens communicate with ionizing radiation

    humans lost their hair due to the heat

    and now

    the melting Arctic is an outlier.

    you do denial the best I have ever come across, possibly with the exception of graham bird


    • Eric Worrall says:

      You made my day John – you don’t have an answer to my global ice cover statement, so you have fallen back on “denier speak with forked tongue” :-)

      • john byatt says:

        Been there, done that, have the T shirt,

        RE Joe McLeod (The Gympie Times September 25 ) Joe states “The Karakoram glaciers are accumulating enough ice to cause a slight decrease in ocean sea level” This is misinformation, the world contains over 130, 000 glaciers which due to global temperature increase are contributing to more than half of the current rise in sea level of over 3mm per year. Sea level rise is directly related to the global temperature, as the global temperature increases over the coming century then glacier melt and thermal expansion of the oceans will accelerate.
        Of those 130,000 glaciers, Joe selects just three which have a negative sea level rise contribution of one hundredth of a millimeter; he ignores the other 129,997 glaciers and tries to present that as a non biased view of the situation. There is no decrease in sea level rise from glacier mass balance, some are advancing, some are retreating and some are stable. Overall 90% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat. We need to accept the reality of what is taking place,
        Sea level rise due to glacier mass loss is only half of the story; the loss of drinking water provided to millions of people from glaciers is a real concern as we head towards 2100 without a viable plan to curb our carbon emissions.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Given that the Antarctic contains around 90% of the world’s ice, and the Antarctic seems to be accumulating ice (if the increase in sea ice is anything to go by), the statement that “90% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat” seems a bit dubious.

      • john byatt says:

        No the increase in Antarctica sea ice is nothing to go by,

        comes and goes every year, WAIS is the one to watch.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Interesting that a 30 year increase in Antarctic sea ice is unimportant, because it “comes and goes every year”, but a decrease in Arctic sea ice is a global emergency.

      • Nick says:

        The decline in summer Arctic sea ice is increasing net insolation per m2: more LW heating of the sea surface. Will that be balanced by more IR loss from the sea surface? Whatever,the amplitude of local energy transfer is enhance by less ice insulation and reflectivity. Weather implications for high latitudes.

        Antarctic sea ice gain is in winter with lesser energy dynamic.

  44. Eric Worrall says:

    You guys have been waving the occasional flood or heatwave at me as evidence of climate change.

    So far in October in America, over 6 times as many low temperature records were set as high temperature records.

    But I’m aware, of course, that cold weather is just weather, unless it is extremely cold (in which case it is global climate disruption) – only hot weather counts towards climate.

    • john byatt says:

      Watt’s cherry pick versus the reality

    • Nick says:

      Cold weather would ‘count towards climate’ if we were having enough of it to count,Eric. Very simply, that’s it.

      Our ‘record breaking’ October cold snap in eastern Australia lasted a few days, bookended by above average temperatures that no media types thought to mention. These cold outbreaks are all the more remarkable because they are a lot rarer than they once were,as anyone who can remember the 1960s and 1970s can attest.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Yet the winter snow seems to have recovered quite remarkably. And Spring snow, as the recent NSW experience shows.

        Remember the silly alarmist claim by Dr Viner, a CRU professor, that “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”? Noone is saying that now.

        If you want to understand why the media has grown tired of alarmism, you don’t have to look any further than some of the silly things prominent alarmists say.

      • Nick says:

        Winter snow is highly variable at Australian altitudes. Where we have sufficient data,the trend is down while annual variability remains high. This winter at 1800m+ was the best for a decade. Below that elevation it was a poor year…in line with predictions. When there’s plenty of moisture,more is falling as rain. When there is less,more is falling as rain…

        Viner’s comment was premature,and made before the disruptive effects of Arctic sea ice collapse were better appreciated. ‘No one is saying that now': no,but remember the ‘perception management’ process going on with the repetition of such remarks: they are made once [Viner has not been commenting along the same lines every year,as you note] and then idiot dissemblers run with them every week to keep them alive,making them some kind of de facto position from the science now,and giving them a status they never had then. Viner’s comment is an outlier,just like October snow on the Northern Tablelands.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          There is no downward trend in snow cover. Recent studies show the Himalayan ice cover is also expanding. .

          Given that the Greenland ice sheet is thickening, the Himalayan glaciers are growing, the Antarctic is growing, and snow cover on resort mountains is doing just fine, I would say the evidence is that the melting Arctic is the outlier.

          As for your suggestion all this was predicted, I would suggest Viners comments, which were not challenged at the time, show some hasty rewriting of predictions has occurred to prevent falsification “update” the science.

      • Nick says:

        Sorry,Eric,you are simply wrong. Australian snow duration on the ground has diminished and average pack depth has declined,according to Snowy Hydro data. Snow cover at the resorts does fine because operators have installed a lot of snow production capacity in response to observations and predictions.

        You Nature link does not support a blanket assertion that Himalayan ice cover is expanding,in fact even the headline contradicts your hope. Some glaciers in one small area have gained ice due to local environmental changes. The bulk of the Himalayan and Asian ice is shrinking.

        Greenland mass balance by gravitational measurement clearly show the place is losing mass,even while net warming has raised accumulation in places. Similar studies of Antarctica show mass loss as well.

        You are so wildly wrong in those claims,I find it hard to believe you have even checked your sources…and yes,science does ‘update’ .Would you want it any other way? Maybe you need to update [and broaden] your research.

  45. Time to stop feeding the trolls.

    • john byatt says:

      HI Mike, that dr Dumday letter was in yesterdays paper, shook dr Edward Pearson cage again. give him a few weeks and try again if no luck

      feedback was good

      “best way to handle the idiots, with ridicule and satire

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Certainly worked for Winston Churchill. Hitler was apparently incensed that Churchill mocked his NAZI militarism and nice uniforms, when Churchill delivered his national speeches in an evening jacket.

    • rubber taster says:

      Pretty clear now that Eric is in fact a closet Nazi. His constant hate speech and his obsession with Nazism and Eugenics betrays him.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’m not the one promoting pseudoscientific scare stories of imminent catastrophe unless we all take action, scare stories based on nothing but flawed mathematical models.

        Promoting pseudoscientific scare stories is what the Eugenicists did, and look how that ended.

      • rubber tatster says:

        definitely a closet Nazi…

  46. Eric Worrall says:

    It took less than 30 seconds search to debunk the suggestion that Pakistan floods didn’t happen until recently

    As for 3 times in a row, sh!t happens.

    • john byatt says:

      Your link 2010

      U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on his visit during Pakistan Flooding said that he has never seen anything like the flood disaster in Pakistan. According to the National Disaster Management Authority, the current floods in Pakistan constitute the worst natural disaster in the country’s history.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Quite possibly – but as the link I provided shows, severe floods occur every few decades in Pakistan.

        Even if it is the worst disaster anyone can remember, one outlier does not a global disaster make.

  47. Eric Worrall says:

    BTW I must apologise for not replying earlier.

    Due to global warming induced strong winds in Queensland, I had to clean a lot of nature from the surrounding forest out of my pool. I rather took my time, and enjoyed a glass or two of chilled white, to help sustain me through this arduous task on a lovely hot day.

  48. john byatt says:

    12 October 2012 (United Nations) – With nearly five million Pakistanis hit by floods that have already claimed some 400 lives, ruined tens of thousands of houses and vast swathes of crops, and left hundreds of thousands living in camps or simply under tarpaulins, the United Nations today appealed for more donations to bolster relief efforts.

    “In some areas people stranded in flood waters are still being rescued by boats to safer places,” a spokesperson for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Jens Laerke, told a news briefing in Geneva. “The immediate needs are on food, emergency shelter, health water and sanitation and hygiene services.”

    at desdemona

  49. john byatt says:

    Why did Canada withdraw from Kyoto?

    In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that they would not take on further Kyoto targets. The Canadian government invoked Canada’s legal right to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011.Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canada’s liability to “enormous financial penalties” under the treaty unless it withdrew. He also suggested that the recently signed Durban agreement may provide an alternative way forward. Canada’s decision was strongly criticised by representatives of other ratifying countries, including France and China.

    Brainless “and (it appears) China follow Canada’s lead in throwing out this nonsense”,

    Canada’s decision was strongly criticised by representatives of other ratifying countries, including France and China.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Nevertheless they pulled out. And are staying out. Along with Russia and Japan.

      And as long as a few stay out, everyone has to stay out – otherwise countries which take it seriously will be eaten alive by economies which are not hamstrung by having to pay more for energy.

  50. Eric Worrall says:

    I see – so your argument is carbon taxes damage the economy, but as long as everyone else is damaging their economy, everything will be OK – it will be a level playing field of damaged economies.


    Even if China does implement a carbon scheme, it will be as corrupt as anything else they do – a bit of window dressing, to appease the white devils and their strange beliefs.

    As a refugee from the European ruin, I’m hoping that Australia and (it appears) China follow Canada’s lead in throwing out this nonsense, before its too late.

    Australia in case you hadn’t noticed, is not doing so well lately, but it has not embraced carbon pricing and eco-madness to the same extent as the European ruin.

    • Speaking of damage…how’s your brain?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Quite good – I never attended the “experiencing nature” course.

      • louploup2 says:

        Eric, you are a most unpleasant troll. People are reduced to posting comments on your brain function, because you don’t exhibit much of it. I attend the “experiencing nature” course, as much as possible. Very informative; you might try it.

        As for carbon regulation and taxation; the more we burn the sorrier we’ll be. Most governments and bureaucracies understand that. This article is a good summary of the current dynamic re a low carbon economy.

        Considerable effort is going toward figuring out how to make carbon reduction work in everyone’s self-interest, more or less. E.g.,

        What’s the last time you used, Eric?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          I tried using Google Scholar when I was looking for the 1932 Eugenics Congress Report. Sadly I had to use other sources.

          As for carbon reduction “working in everyone’s self interest”, this is predicated on the unproven assumption that CO2 is a problem. As long as major countries refuse to accept that premise, any attempt to put a price on Carbon is doomed – countries who genuinely try end up with train wreck economies, like the disaster states of Europe, while countries which repudiate this nonsense, like Canada, eat their lunch.

      • rubber taster says:

        Eric doesn’t need facts – he gets his orders from aliens broadcasting via gamma rays! (seriously…he believes this)

    • Nick says:

      Eric,you’ve unwittingly stumbled over the point of agreeing on a global mechanism and price for carbon,or for any global scale environmental cost : if everyone “damages their economies” collectively, then NO one is disadvantaged and is not therefore damaging their economies! Glad you’re catching up. Raise the cost of FF and drive the transition to the post carbon energy system before we are forced to by shortage. China cannot continue to mine 2.5 billion tonnes of coal annually,nor can it continue to jam its port and rail infrastructure with importing and/or moving the stuff. It needs to make its break to the future now. That may not be so obvious to Australians.

      Economies that refuse to internalise [IOW discount] environmental costs are ignoring reality.

      Back to this post,LibLab have been doing their best to milk the issue for the political value that they think reflects their blocs interests,while actually doing little. A little taxing,redistribution and some generous handouts have done very little to restrain FF use,while exports are go,go,go. Yes,domestic solar capacity and solar hot water have been encouraged, wind got a go,but the whinging of the centralised grid monkeys has seen them paid off,and their price demands are rubber-stamped. Yes,the cost of transition to a decentralised,multi-source generation system is considerable [especially when you insist on privatising sytem elements then have to compensate the aggrieved powerful]…but it still remains that coal,while having a high energy content per unit,is underpriced because the environmental and health damage it causes is irrationally discounted. And it is a finite resource,when you understand that getting to what is left gets harder.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If everyone damages their economy, then everyone has damaged economies. Its not a zero sum game.

        If some countries are smart enough to not damage their economies, they have an advantage, which does even more damage to the fools who allowed their economies to be damaged.

        So your best case is everyone pays more for the basics, like energy. This has a real impact you know – in Britain, poor people have to choose between heating and eating, because of green policies and opposition to gas fracking.

        Your worse case, a partial subscription to carbon madness, is those who subscribe commit economic suicide, while countries which ignore your imaginary externalities cruise happily on, taking full advantage of the follies of their competitors.

        As for coal being a finite resource, of course it is – but there are centuries of coal left to be mined. And unlike you, I’m not arrogant enough to presume to be able to predict what resources will be available to my distant descendants. Trying to predict what our descants 400 years from now will be using for energy is like someone in 1700 trying to predict anything meaningful about our energy resources – a pointless waste of effort.

      • Nick says:

        Eric, every regulation imposed on industry over the last 150 years has been opposed as ‘suicidal’. If the imposte is distributed evenly it is not damaging. Nobody likes a free rider: global carbon pricing,a reflection of the borderless,globe-encompassing nature of carbon dioxide,is inevitable in the quest to drive energy policy beyond coal.

        We already have a host of global regulations and agreements so it’s not as if we are in uncharted waters.

        Consider this about ‘economic suicide': the economic model we follow now is socially destructive and ultimately economically suicidal. It brings untold discomfort to those whose jobs have been exported to the next low regulation,low wage ecological time-bomb de jour. It has no plan but to plow on and devil take the hindmost: in the world’s ‘greatest’ economy,45 million are on food stamps. That’s an example of the socially suicidal nature of laissez faire. So get a sense of context before you claim that costing environmental damage is suicidal.

        Your analogy equating the quality of a 1700 technology prediction with one made now is ridiculous and deluded. We now understand the laws of physics,have harnessed all the natural energy sources that were not even guessed at then,and have figured out how to squeeze energy out of just about any source,either practically or theoretically. 1700 was the age of wood and dung burning,with the odd wind and water mill. The world was effectively limitless then. It is foolish to think it still is.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nick, thank you for your civil reply. But I disagree with you on a number of points.

          “If the imposte is distributed evenly it is not damaging…”
          This is incorrect, and a quick thought experiment can show why. Say a tax of 105% was imposed on all gross profits from any transaction. Normal commerce would quickly grind to a halt. It wouldn’t matter that the tax was applied evenly upon everyone, it would still destroy the economy overnight.

          I suggest to you that there is a continuum of damage, between whatever carbon taxes you guys want to apply (effectively a tax on the gross energy input for any transaction) and this obviously extreme hypothetical example. If you think I’m wrong about this, feel free to explain why.

          “the economic model we follow now is socially destructive and ultimately economically suicidal. It brings untold discomfort to those whose jobs have been exported to the next low regulation,low wage ecological time-bomb de jour.”
          This is incorrect – the discomfort occurs because government regulations and excessive taxes have fouled up the economies of countries which are suffering, and conferred significant advantages on low tax lightly regulated economies like Singapore and Hong Kong. Open markets are the great leveller, they are our only real protection against excessive government – even dictatorships like China have embraced economic freedoms we can only dream of in the West. The West is suffering, because people in the West haven’t adapted – they haven’t worked out that the real blame lies with the politicians we keep electing, who refuse to do anything to curb government excess. The GDP per capital of Singapore and Hong Kong are substantially above most places. We shouldn’t be pulling back from open markets, we should be copying the policies of those who are succeeding.

          There is a terrific documentary, well worth watching, which explains this in detail – “The Trillion Pound Horror Story”.

          “We now understand the laws of physics,have harnessed all the natural energy sources that were not even guessed at then,and have figured out how to squeeze energy out of just about any source,either practically or theoretically.”
          Not true. There are substantial gaps in our knowledge of physics, the solution to which might yield new sources of energy. I can think of three potential energy sources off the top of my head which we don’t yet understand well enough to exploit – “hot” nuclear fusion, which might be solved by ITER in the near future, muon catalysed cold fusion which is one of those almost technologies, and technology which is currently completely speculative, such as harnessing Hawking radiation from micro black hole evaporation (intriguing, because it offers potential mass to energy conversion rates of 30% or more, but utterly speculative – noone has yet built a micro black hole).

          And of course you have the standard near term technologies such as Thorium reactors, which could be made today, but are not economically viable – not with all that cheap shale gas pouring out of the ground.

          “1700 was the age of wood and dung burning,with the odd wind and water mill.”
          I’m going to resist the temptation… :-). Seriously, our descendants will look back on us as similarly primitive. Every age believes there is nothing important left to discover.

      • Nick says:

        Your thought experiment is valid as far as it goes,but is no substitute for an analogy! A price on carbon at a few percent at input stage is pretty low on your ‘continuum of damage’,just as Tony Abbott’s ‘collapsing’ Australian economy shows it must be pretty low down on a ‘continuum of collapse’ ;)

        Citing Singapore and Hong Kong as low tax / low regulation economies also flies in the face of reality. Both of them have leveraged historical colonial transitional advantage denied most real low tax/low reg economies. As tiny nation states their infrastructure costs only need to service tiny areas. They are gateway sites for growing low /tax low reg areas. The countries where US,European and Australian manufacturing have gravitated are not mentioned by you. The US minimum wage,so low as to condemn a quarter of that nation to poverty,is still not enough to bring the manufacturers back… so your protective free market can not be working that well. African and Asian economies with low environmental regulation standards are soaking up our waste,wasting their resources and fouling their water and air,with the profits going to corporations,dictators and politicians: that’s the kind of excessive government we really need protection from. While corporations have more rights and freedoms than individuals to move between sovereignties,we will continue to go down the path to more inequality,disenfranchisement and disengagement.

        China,so ‘corrupt’ in your original comment, is now an exemplar of economic freedom for us to follow.

        Re 1700,we do know that our descendents in 2400 will not be using FFs in any significant way,as they will be exhausted at scale,regardless of AGW and carbon prices. I have no faith in the ‘market signals’ leaving us enough energy to transition to post-carbon in an orderly way. Especially as the market signals are in reality the whims of incumbent FF mega-corporations and their bought advocates in public office. Seriously, we can assess our resources in a way not possible in 1700. We also know that we have seven billion more souls aboard. How do our year 1700 prognosticators figure as parallels? Our descendents will look back at us as profligate,at first unwittingly,then increasingly recklessly,as an embedded corporatist feudalism distorted and hindered civil governments ability to govern for all.


        • Eric Worrall says:

          Your thought experiment is valid as far as it goes,but is no substitute for an analogy! A price on carbon at a few percent at input stage is pretty low on your ‘continuum of damage’
          A few percent which does not inflict enough pain to change behaviour is a pointless annoyance. If you impose enough pain to force a change of behaviour, it is because, in some cases at least, people are choosing suboptimal solutions – their lives are impoverished. These choices are a thousand little strokes of pain – a reduced thermostat setting in winter, fewer long drives to see the grandparents, a longer commute on public transport rather than a short, convenient car drive – you just don’t see how much harm you are doing.

          Citing Singapore and Hong Kong as low tax / low regulation economies also flies in the face of reality. Both of them have leveraged historical colonial transitional advantage denied most real low tax/low reg economies. As tiny nation states their infrastructure costs only need to service tiny areas. They are gateway sites for growing low /tax low reg areas.
          Actually Hong Kong and Singapore were war damaged backwaters at the time colonial Britain loosened her grip. The Asian Miracle was actually created by a Scottish Civil Servant. He was finance minister of Hong Kong, sent shortly after the end of WW2 with a mandate to help people rebuild their lives. He realised when he arrived, that people were doing a terrific job by themselves, and dedicated the rest of his tenure to preventing well meaning but harmful government intervention. The experiment was so successful, the rest of Asia copied his ideas, even Communist China.

          The countries where US,European and Australian manufacturing have gravitated are not mentioned by you. The US minimum wage,so low as to condemn a quarter of that nation to poverty,is still not enough to bring the manufacturers back… so your protective free market can not be working that well.
          Debt and tax in the USA are still uncompetitively high. Investors are not fools, they know even if taxes are currently reasonable, someone will have to help repay the $16 trillion+ US government debt. And since the rich are outnumbered, the poor and middle class will vote to fleece them.

          African and Asian economies with low environmental regulation standards are soaking up our waste,wasting their resources and fouling their water and air,with the profits going to corporations,dictators and politicians: that’s the kind of excessive government we really need protection from. While corporations have more rights and freedoms than individuals to move between sovereignties,we will continue to go down the path to more inequality,disenfranchisement and disengagement.

          China,so ‘corrupt’ in your original comment, is now an exemplar of economic freedom for us to follow.
          China in many ways is a dreadful place. I was once taken aside by a red army official and questioned on my way to a business engagement in Taipei, not a pleasant experience. But in many respects they are getting it very right – their tax rates, approx. 25% of GDP, are comparable to Britain at the height of the British Empire. And it shows.

          Re 1700,we do know that our descendents in 2400 will not be using FFs in any significant way,as they will be exhausted at scale,regardless of AGW and carbon prices.
          Not necessarily. As new energy sources displace traditional hydrocarbons, the reduced rate of consumption might stretch resource longevity. Coal is awfully handy for low tech heating.

          I have no faith in the ‘market signals’ leaving us enough energy to transition to post-carbon in an orderly way. Especially as the market signals are in reality the whims of incumbent FF mega-corporations and their bought advocates in public office.
          I put it to you that centralised planning has a far worse track record of efficient resource allocation than markets. Shale gas was a product of market signals – traditional gas sources were becoming expensive, so innovation yielded a new resource. The Saudis are reputed to be trying to keep oil price capped for fear of demand destruction – the Canadian tar sands, another innovation, are the result of Saudi failure to keep oil prices low.

          Seriously, we can assess our resources in a way not possible in 1700. We also know that we have seven billion more souls aboard. How do our year 1700 prognosticators figure as parallels?
          Quite well actually. They were clever at calculating the resources they knew about, just as we are fairly clever at calculating the extent of resources we know about. The 1700s was the genesis of the British Empire – some very clever resource calculations were involved in the rise of that political entity.

          Our descendents will look back at us as profligate,at first unwittingly,then increasingly recklessly,as an embedded corporatist feudalism distorted and hindered civil governments ability to govern for all.
          I have no confidence in governments being able to, or event wanting to “govern for all”. I’ve never understood why people imagine that the scum who run many private companies are transformed into selfless servants of the people when they take up a government post. We have no real control of our representatives, its just an election every few years gives us an opportunity to rid ourselves of the most tiresome without having to shoot them.

          As a feedback / control mechanism consumer choice is much better at delivering optimal solutions. The reason is very simple, as this thought experiment will show.

          Imagine everyone has to shop at the same supermarket on 5 year contracts – only after 5 years could you change supermarket, and you have no guarantee that your new supermarket won’t immediately put up prices as soon as your choice is cast. Can you imagine what a horrible consumer experience that would be?

          And yet I repeatedly hear claims that government is somehow better than the market. I still don’t understand why.

      • john byatt says:

        ” I have no faith in the ‘market signals’ leaving us enough energy to transition to post-carbon in an orderly way”

        Nick gets it, Eric does not….

        • Eric Worrall says:

          So your solution is to employ well proven soviet style central management? What evidence do you have that disconnected bureaucrats are better decision makers than people who have to live with the consequences of their decisions?

      • Nick says:

        I’ll just say Eric that your point-by-point responses have produced some interesting asides,but do not rebut my argument about the trajectory of the hyper-consumption model economy.. The market can use some guidance [and indeed always talks of getting ‘certainty’ from government] without the sky falling.

        You resort to the either-or, absolutist reaction to a suggestion of some more regulation and intervention in the market by hysterical resort to ‘Sovietist’ alarm. A tenured bureaucrat,chosen on merit,and insulated from change of ruling party,can do a better job than a frantic short term corporate appointee with a brief to maximise short term shareholder gain and guarantee his own share allocation. We worked for centuries to overcome banditry and fractured governance,now we want to ignore history.

        And again you note approvingly China, “in many respects a terrible place”, has at least got the tax structure right. I ask you, ‘right’ for the viability of the society,or the interests of the privileged?

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Nick, a tenured bureaucrat who is insulated from the whims of the ruling party (by which I presume you mean can’t be fired) can do a good job – that possibility exists.

          But why should they? What is their motivation? And how do you get rid of them if they make a botch of things, as the “tenured bureaucrats” who are running the EU currently seem to be doing? And who decides whether they are doing a good job – the representatives elected by the people? Or other bureaucrats?

          If the representatives elected by the people decide whether a bureaucrat is doing a good job, and whether they should keep that job, then the bureaucrats are not “insulated” – their job is in the hands of the ruling party.

          If the bureaucrats keep their job only at the whim of other bureaucrats, you have a dictatorship – elected representatives are powerless to remove the people who are really making the decisions, running the government.

          And as for “guiding the market”, there are tremendous rewards for someone who is willing to bend the rules a little, to abuse their power to favour their friends. How do you prevent this from happening?

          If you had a way of selecting people who were selflessly dedicated to doing a good job, and had a way to make sure they stayed that way, then your bureaucracy might work. But in an imperfect world filled with imperfect people, your ideal bureaucrat is a rare beast indeed.

          I mean they do exist. One of the former presidents of Columbia obtained an enabling act, which allowed him to suspend the constitution, and rule by decree. For 18 months he waged war against FARQ insurgents, and utterly crushed the insurrection. Then, to the surprise of everyone, he relinquished his power, restored the constitution, called an election (to which he invited international monitors), and won by a landslide. And later stepped aside, after 2 terms as president, to honour the constitution.

          And of course we have the legend of Cincinnatus , the roman general who was twice given dictatorial power, exercised it for the minimum time possible, then relinquished it. Cincinnatus was the inspiration George Washington quoted, when he refused to be king.

          But for every Cincinnatus you have a legion of Ceasars, people whose greed and lust for power betrays the principles they espoused to seize power. And it is these people your system must guard against.

          Your “tenured bureaucrat” has no checks and balances – we have no protection from their potential, even likely, greed and corruption.

      • Nick says:

        It’s getting pretty sad when people are getting so accustomed to American style crony politics [new government,new bureaucrats,new contractors,change the legal hierarchy,etc] in a country that used to see government change hands without too many heads rolling and too much valuable experience and administrative nous gained at public expense being shown the door.

        Now I shouldn’t exaggerate and say this is everywhere,but I have observed an increase in political expulsions and re assignments,coinciding with the rise of the political staffers numbers. And an increase in poorly judged deals done on the public’s behalf,money disappearing into black hole contracts,and nepotism.

        I personally know an excellent,experienced and versatile administrator who has survived regime change because his sheer competence was appreciated across party lines; some people have that x-factor brilliance in translating policy intent into useful practice.

        What is the motivation? The challenge. A good sense of how a society works and the real value of service provision. Not money.

        Anyway, you accept that good admins with longevity are not the slippery slope to Sovietism. And perhaps that their hard won specialist experience is worth retaining.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Yes, good admins exist. Some of the most impressive people I met worked for the police. For example I did some work a long time ago for police internal affairs, and was deeply impressed by the dedication the head of IA brought to rooting out corruption, and her resistance to sundry political attempts to restore business as usual.

          But for a variety of reasons, government bureaucracy is almost always the inferior option. Consumer choice – voting with your feet – is a potent feedback.

          And I love the egalitarianism of capitalism. My merchant banking clients simply don’t give a stuff if you’re black, brown, green, man or woman – all they care about is whether you will increase the size of their end of year bonus. The cutthroat competition of capitalism allows nothing less than single minded pursuit of excellence, and brutally punishes any unwarranted prejudice which distracts players from this goal.

          A Ghanian acquaintance recently experienced a meteoric career rise in a stuffy old Swiss bank, because he is really good at what he does – he is now only 3 rungs of the ladder away from CEO. Whatever their private prejudices, the people making promotion decisions placed more value on ensuring they could meet their next super yacht loan repayment.

      • john byatt says:

        Yes Eric where would we be without the quest for profit?

        the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research says such gas price rises for power producers would see cost increases three times bigger than those from the carbon tax.

        It says the gas price rises would be due to a potential shortage of domestic supply, despite eastern Australia’s abundant gas reserves, due to much of the new production already being sold on long-term contracts to Asia.

      • Nick says:

        Well that’s interesting ,Eric. “all they care about is if you can increase the size of their end of year bonus”…It can be exhilaratingly intense and absorbing,but rather removing from reality,don’t you think? Profitist reductionism,when practised as a societal norm,may be fine when limits to expansion and resource availability are not apparent or truly don’t exist [that’s on Planet Fantasy]. It may be fine if you can convince yourself that trampling lower-tech peoples and stealing their resources [the global game since the 1500s] is always politically viable. It might work better if profit-seekers rationally accounted for ecosystem services,and paid a truly fair share of taxes to the society that gives them their infrastructure,political stability and market.

        But it’s not working in the US,where the poor have gotten poorer [less able to participate,working longer if at all, and less free] and the Romneyites have gotten richer [making more,paying less and free to send their money to low tax regimes and their labour demands to lowest cost providers]. It doesn’t work in India,where there are simply too many people: the rich are not so much creators as re-allocators,allocating more to themselves. These are not stories that will end happily unless the rich embrace redistribution in a demonstration that they understand their broader interests.

        Capitalism is not intentionally egalitarian. It may be a groomer and rewarder of deal-creation talent,offering exciting personal narratives, but that is elitist first and foremost. Capitalism would do better if it new when and how to stop and reassess,but that is difficult when you have hungry shareholders demanding their sit-down money. It’s playing a global game with local rules. No wonder it keeps falling over.

        And John has raised one of the most fascinatingly underappreciated issues with our gas boom: We have no long term domestic energy security strategy, we have already sold much of our resource on long term contracts. The great inventory increase, which might have bought us time, has already effectively been spent,locked away on twenty and more year contracts. Underpriced. Our kids will love us even more.

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Your mistake Nick is thinking there is a better alternative to Capitalism.

          Where is your evidence? Every attempt to create a better, more equal society other than by embracing Capitalism has failed.

          Even the socialist darling Sweden is more capitalist than you think. Personal taxes in Sweden are high, but corporation taxes are so low Sweden verges, in some respects, on being a tax haven. And Sweden blatantly turns a blind eye to rich Swedes avoiding personal income tax, by investing in Sweden via blind companies in Lichtenstein. If they didn’t, their entire economy would fall apart.

          Redistributionist policies are the real elitism – they only hurt the middle class. The rich can buy enough politicians and lawyers to wriggle out of them.

          As for resource limitations, you still have not demonstrated there are any practical limits on resources. Yes this planet has physical limits, but we have barely scratched the surface – oceans of oil, and vast quantities of minerals, lay under the ocean floor, or locked under polar ice, or sequestered in national parks, and are simply not worth chasing while cheaper alternatives are available. And, centuries from now, when this planet’s wealth is exhausted, we shall be strip mining the solar system.

      • Nick says:

        Your mistake,Eric,is thinking that ‘Capitalism’ is some kind of immutable process,when in reality it isn’t. Capitalism must be disciplined to work in the greater interest.

        These untold pools of oil are fictions for your faith.You’d probably lose a lot of confidence if you faced reality on a few issues,so you hang on to this Cornucopian vision. Arctic oil reserves are not expected to amount to much. All Australian national parks have been prospected for 150 years before their dedication as reserves. We know coal and oil shale reserves underlie some of the parks in sedimentary basins,and doubtless face conflict over surface access to some,but the bulk of reserves are on no-reserved land.

        We won’t be ‘strip mining the solar system’. The huge amount of energy required to reach,colonise [even robotically] ,mine and export from any planet you want to mention is obviously beyond your grasp. How do we transport quantity through the bottleneck of atmospheres without incinerating it? I can see a shuttles worth of ‘Martian oil’ delivered on a turnaround of two years is really going to scale nicely [sarc]

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Your mistake,Eric,is thinking that ‘Capitalism’ is some kind of immutable process,when in reality it isn’t. Capitalism must be disciplined to work in the greater interest.

          Nonsense. As the economist Adam Smith showed, the benefits of capitalism emerge from the self interest of the participants. The real myth is that any other system so far devised can deliver similar benefits. There is no evidence that any other system can deliver the benefits of capitalism, only untested models (hmmm, what does that remind me of? ;-) ).

          These untold pools of oil are fictions for your faith.You’d probably lose a lot of confidence if you faced reality on a few issues,so you hang on to this Cornucopian vision. Arctic oil reserves are not expected to amount to much. All Australian national parks have been prospected for 150 years before their dedication as reserves. We know coal and oil shale reserves underlie some of the parks in sedimentary basins,and doubtless face conflict over surface access to some,but the bulk of reserves are on no-reserved land.

          150 years is well beyond the horizon of what we can foresee about future technology, and well beyond what we have to see. We already know of theoretical energy systems which are hinted at by laws of physics we know, ranging from nuclear fusion, Thorium fission, and more exotic possibilities, such as muon catalysed fusion.

          Thorium fission alone could push back the horizon of the energy crisis almost indefinitely – compared to Uranium, Thorium is relatively abundant – a cubic metre of garden soil typically contains around 60g of Thorium. Working research reactors which burn Thorium have been built, but it simply isn’t economically worthwhile to bring exotic energy systems like Thorium burners to commercial viability, while other cheap abundant energy sources are available.

          We won’t be ‘strip mining the solar system’. The huge amount of energy required to reach,colonise [even robotically] ,mine and export from any planet you want to mention is obviously beyond your grasp. How do we transport quantity through the bottleneck of atmospheres without incinerating it? I can see a shuttles worth of ‘Martian oil’ delivered on a turnaround of two years is really going to scale nicely [sarc]

          I’m well aware that a toy like the shuttle will not help us exploit resources from other planets. But there are designs for propulsion systems which have got the necessary specific impulse to shift large masses into orbit cheaply, or shift said masses around the solar system. One of them was seriously considered as the power source for the Apollo mission.

          The engineers and scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project wanted to find a peaceful use for the nuclear bombs they had developed. The results of their effort was Project Orion – a space drive capable of lifting thousands, even millions of tons into orbit with a single launch, yet also capable of enormous delta v – the most powerful designs had a theoretical top speed of 10% of the speed of light.

          Obviously it would be less than desirable to base an economy on frequent atmospheric nuclear explosions. But if all else fails, and its a choice between crashing back to the stone age, or accessing resources from other planets, then Project Orion is proof that we have the technology to extend our reach.

          There are no limits to growth.

      • Nick says:

        Project Orion? LOL. The “if all else fails” is telling. If we can’t handle the social changes that are the inevitable result of rising resource demand,increasing population,increased longevity and expectations built from hollow promises…IOW live within our global means,then this is the ‘option’? The non-optional option?

        Let’s pretend for discussion’s sake that PO is technically feasible,which is unlikely because it cannot be live tested,only modelled. We are hardly likely to see a Project Orion sanctioned by a connected global community as it is dangerously polluting. A PO is end-game stuff,massively polluting of the atmosphere…and still utterly unable to supply timely quantity in and out of two atmospheres. So spectacularly pointless.

        It’s cheaper to recycle,Eric

        • Eric Worrall says:

          Project Orion is more than capable of shifting Asteroid size masses around the solar system Nick, so there is no way we shall run short of resources.

          And yes, I agree it would have to be “endgame” for us to use something as polluting as Project Orion. Which is why I hope other options, such as a space elevator, or mass driver, are employed instead. But Project Orion has the advantage that it is cheap, fast, and is something I can cite as evidence that we are not limited to the resources of one planet.

          Your “recycling” option is the real path to despair. No recycling system is 100% efficient – eventually we shall run out of something. Expansion is the only hope of maintaining a technological civilisation.

      • Nick says:

        PO is a ‘backs against the wall’ scenario. Ending up there is no endorsement of our coping skills.

        So,we have ‘rolled’ an asteroid size chunk of ore-bearing matter [and,er,what are the fossil carbon reserves like on Mars?] back to a near Earth orbit. What ores are present? How much of this asteroid is just filler? [how many billion tonnes of coal did we burn last year?] After warning the population of some medium term tidal effects,we then have to pass little bits down in heat resistant capsules through the atmosphere bottleneck for use. Costs are creeping up.

        PO is “polluting” and admittedly an “endgame”,yet is somehow “cheap”…There you go with your accounting deficiencies again,Eric ;)

        “No recycling system is 100% efficient” so what is?…and,well,burning coal only gets 30% of the energy out doesn’t it? Recycling aluminium is more cost efficient then mining and processing aluminium ore. All systems are lossy…PO will not scale to maintain a growth economy. If you are more realistic–not that it’s much of an improvement on fantasy,PO may allow a much reduced global society to ease along with all the restraints you loathe. I actually think that recycling sophistication will keep the planet-mining stuff in the realm of entertainment.

        Growth economies ultimately try to flout physical laws. Biocapacity. It’s not personal or political,just a matter of specifications. We know this,and it will be to our great credit if we can build it into our modes of living.

  51. Mike Barnard says:

    Yup. They’ve had Graciela Chichilnisky, the architect of the Kyoto Protocol’s carbon trading scheme over there dozens of times as they figure out how to approach this.

Comments are closed.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: