@ Julia’s nutter cont’d

Now, it is patently obvious you haven’t a clue about statistical time series analysis; otherwise you would have understood this:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/how-not-to-analyze-tide-gauge-data/

Take a another deep breath – not many others would either.

Nevertheless, the point to take in is that there is variability in the rate of rise (remember the bumps and troughs?) For example, go back to the 1930s/40s and you get a declining rate – go back earlier (which Watson didn’t) an acceleration; later another acceleration.

CSIRO and others show global sea level rise since 1993 has been between 2.8-3.2 mm per year, near the upper end of IPCC predictions.

For your further information, sea levels around the Australian coast have risen an average of 5 – 6mm per year between 1993 and early 2011, well above the 20th Century average of 1.7 mm per year. On this all scientists agree, monitoring must continue at all levels.

.

@ nutter

“What's happened to your 'severe weather events' explanation/excuse?”

Liar!

I said that the current record wet and cool patterns of weather are associated with one of the strongest La Ninas, ever.

You are clearly incapable of understanding why the world’s average temperatures in 1998 and 2010/11 were on par, given the former was affected by one of the hottest El Ninos on record, and the latter by one of the coldest La Ninas on record.

Why are you so incapable? Like all "anti warmer" nutters, you only believe in what you want to believe - on political ideological grounds.

Nutter, you obviously don’t understand the concept of the peer review process.

Mr Watson’s paper clearly was reviewed by editors for content and his managers. Make no mistake, it is very well written. What happens now is other experts may (they may not) use his paper to bolster their own research, or because of the questions raised, critique and challenge the findings.

It would be helpful if an expert time-series statistician submitted a critique, just to allay the shrill from nutters like you and the deliberate distortion and misrepresentation from broadsheet newspapers, like The Australian.

Lexi,

Are you trying to claim that Juliar has not broken her promises?

As for the direct action plan, remember that the carbon tax as stated in the productivity report is not high enough to motivate the change over from coal to gas ($40/t required) and that the vast majority of the emissions "reduction" will be achieved by buying carbon credits from over seas.

Real emissions are set to grow by 5.5% from today's figures and be 13% higher than in 2000.

Of the remainder of the reductions, the vast majority will be achieved by the $10-13bn allocated to the Bob Brown bank for direct action on renewables.

To sum up very roughly the reduction effect by 2020:
60% by buying carbon credits from shady 3rd world dealers
30% by direct action
10% by the increased cost of energy called the carbon tax.

This carbon tax is a complete Joke.

SM,

I can see that it's pointless attempting to have any sort of a
discussion with you. Economists do not support Abbott's risible
"Direct Action," plan, and Australia's top scientists disagree
with his analysis. Mr Abbott, as I've stated earlier has
talked down the economy in an effort to exaggerate the impact of
the government's carbon tax. Yet you continue to repeat your party's
line. However, that's understandable. The first rule of propaganda -
confine the message to a few simple points and repeat them over
and over. Tony Abbott is a master. And you attempt to follow suit.
The only joke here happens to be - the both of you.
I shan't be responding to you any further. My sense of humour does
not stretch that far.

Lexi,

All the modelling is about reducing emissions in Australia, and for that the clear answer is that a price on carbon is the most efficient means of doing so.

What the modelling assumes is that all other countries have a similar price regime, and that emissions simply do not transfer overseas. If production simply moves overseas, which is the most likely result of a one sided price on carbon, the total change in global emissions will be zero, and Australia, sharing the atmosphere will achieve zero environmental benefit.

Secondly the tax is being introduced in a massive step, increasing the cost of brown coal power generation nearly 3x. As the brown coal generators have borrowings of more than $7bn to Australian banks, and the tax will lower their capital value to lower than this, the banks will face debts not covered by collateral.

However, I will grant that the solar schemes and other direct actions so far were complete abortions, but in fairness they were run by Labor (state and federal), so what can you expect. :P

There are strong arguments for a carbon tax, but the package being offered by Juliar, is so compromised that it is damaging.

Bonmot,

Lets address your abusive allegation

'Liar.

I said that the current record wet and cool patterns of weather are associated with one of the strongest La Ninas, ever.'

But you also said something with quite the opposite inference following an interchange on 30th June. Did you forget?

1.
'Global warming gives rise to volatile and unusual weather events - not to distinctly "warmer" weather.'
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:44:20 PM

2.
'"Global warming gives rise to volatile and unusual weather events - not to distinctly "warmer" weather. "

Just what hard evidence can the brainwashed/warmists produce to support this AGW weather variability claim, when even the IPCC does not give credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events?'
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:45:19 PM

3.
'"Just what hard evidence can the brainwashed/warmists produce to support this AGW weather variability claim, when even the IPCC does not give credence to a linkage between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and extreme weather events?"

'A statement from a person who obviously hasn't read or understood AR4.
Expect more of the same, if not more, when AR5 is released.'

Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 3:54:47 PM

Lets see what else you've said.

'The rate of rise (Sea Level)is getting greater though.
And the world doesn't end in 2100.'
Posted by bonmot, Sunday, 3 July 2011 10:00:25 AM

'They are rising faster than what was projected 5 years ago – 80 cm by 2100. This might not seem a lot, but tell that to 50 million people that would be affected.'
Posted by bonmot, Thursday, 30 June 2011 2:22:32 PM

So now that the science, like the weather, is proving you wrong yet again you've again returned to the defence with your old inaccurate science and sunk to your usual level of abuse.

I think you might need to show some decency and apologise to me.

Oh and Gillard is a liar.

Bonmot,

The assertions you are making about Watson and his peer-reviewed article, the peers who reviewed his article and his publishers might be a tad upset if anything you are asserting (Without Peer review) is incorrect.

Oh and you'll look really really very very silly if the IPCC scientists in their calculations have used the same methodology in presenting their historical statistical data in their reports and their subsequent modelling.

You have checked ... haven't you? No, I'll bet you haven't.

'Watson's also acknowledges there has been an acceleration in sea level rise this century...'

Yes of course he does and you grab that straw as an aid in your argument and you don't dispute his statistical methodology in regard to that statement while at exactly the same time you reject his acknowledgement that there is currently a deceleration in sea level rises and you dispute his statistical methodology in regard to that.

All in the same peer-reviewed piece.

Laughable really.