The article starts by correctly saying current approaches to carbon trading are deeply flawed and then concludes that since the solution is tough perhaps the problem is misconceived. How about both the problem and the solution are tough? A few of us are getting the impression the climate is getting weirder to the point that it may be a grossly unfair legacy to future generations. The future adaptation task may be too big if it requires disruptive population shifts and conflict over water rights with more losers than gainers. Some sacrifice now may ease that burden and possibly make the adaptation effort manageable.

I believe that carbon trading can be internationally standardised albeit with tough measures like penalty tariffs and a crackdown on avoidance by inflated offsets. It just takes the political will to do it; the longer we do nothing the worse the problem becomes.

There is also mounting evidence that much of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is not even human induced, being part of longer term ocean circulation cycles.

The data from Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii show a gradually increasing trend over the decades from 1958 but with an annual cycle of increase and decrease of about 7ppm. This underlying trend increase was about 0.75ppm each year in the early decades to about 1.2ppm over recent ones.

1ppm of CO2 amounts to about 5.2Gt with the current annual human induced emissions recorded at about 7Gt, which should total 1.4ppm.

But the really interesting part of the data set is found in the 1997/98 El Nino year when CO2 levels jumped by more than 3ppm or 16Gt. There was no corresponding jump in human emissions.

And while some could claim that the resulting drought reduced photosynthesis and carbon absorption, they ignore the fact that on the other side of the Pacific there is a balancing wet season that would account for any shortfall.

The most likely explanation is in the deep ocean upwelling that produces the normally dry La Nina conditions off Chile and Peru in four out of six years and the corresponding four out of six wet to medium years in Australia. This deep ocean upwelling has been lifting water that has been on the ocean floor for 800 to 1000 years and it takes a few years for sufficient volume of this water to warm up and produce our El Nino dry seasons.

And when this cold water has warmed up it's capacity to hold CO2 in suspension is reduced and that CO2 is released into the atmosphere. And it just so happens that 900 years ago when this water descended in the southern ocean it was in the middle of the medieval warming period when high CO2 levels were being absorbed by our oceans.

Why should we get into a lather about a natural cycle in CO2 levels?

perseus, we should get in a lather because human generated co2 is being added to the environment. if there are other causes as well, even more necessity for action.

we know we are adding co2 because burning oil and coal does it, and we have transformed a lot of solid carbon into co2 in the last 200 years. we have also greatly reduced the forests that might have aided in reclaiming carbon.

i can't think of any reason to not pursue 'steady-state' operation of human/nature interaction, since we live in a finite world. whether we get to a balance with nature now or later does matter: change of climate and species extinction are approaching levels which alarm even the dimmest, and terrify some scientists who are well placed to know where we are going.

The way hard facts can go right over your head, Demos, leaves me breathless.

Global temperatures at the peak of previous interglacial periods have been 2 to 3 degrees warmer than now but the subsequent cooling was well in train while the CO2 was still rising.

The recorded temperature rises have been contaminated by urban heat islands and rural albedo changes. The IPCC crony who claimed to have done definitive research to exclude these contaminants has refused to supply even a simple list of the weather stations he drew data from. So, surprise, surprise, we are unable to check his findings and are expected to take his claim that global mean temperatures have been rising since 1910 on faith. They were actually higher in the late 1800s.

But don't ever let facts get in the way of a good panic. Given your probable net worth you have nothing much to lose either way, and the idle talk of the vacuous is cheapest of all.

The thrust of the article - practical realities of carbon trading - has been somewhat lost in the old "is it or isn't it" arguments. Only history will tell us which party is right, and by that time it will be too late - either way - to re-adjust the economic factors that result from a decision today.

Effectively, we are betting our entire economic performance on two unknowns: one, that the dire predictions of "reduce emissions or the planet will die" turn out to be correct; and two, that the rest of the world - which is substantially more significant in the overall equation - will play by the same ecological rules.

Each is a big bet; together, it is a massive wager to place on behalf of the citizens of this country.

But politically, we will undoubtedly be part of a some global carbon trading scheme real soon now. The scaremongering has done its work, and no-one can realistically stem the tide.

My prediction is simple. On a global scale, carbon trading will become the biggest swindle in the history of finance.

Billions of dollars will change hands, guaranteed.

Major countries such as India and China will game the system to the point where it becomes an utter farce, and will be the biggest - albeit indirect - beneficiaries of the exercise. Their economies will be significantly strengthened at the expense of dutiful and simple-minded saps like us, together with most of Europe and possibly even the US.

The second biggest beneficiaries will be the traders, who will cream off their percentages despite the fact that, unlike commodities, there is actually no tangible product at the end of the chain.

Unfortunately my son is a couple of years too young to take advantage of it - if he were just about to leave University I'd give him some serious advice.

Remember "The Graduate"?

"Mr. McGuire: I just want to say one word to you - just one word.
Ben: Yes sir.
Mr. McGuire: Are you listening?
Ben: Yes I am.
Mr. McGuire: 'Plastics'."

Today, that word is "Carbon"

Interesting how sceptics fail to address the global contamination of anthropogenic CO2. Carbon based chemicals, when burnt, all convert to CO2 - after their carcinogenic, mutagenic and tetragenic compounds have wrought havoc on the health of the ionosphere, plant life, humans and animals.

Then we have the very concerning issue of the endocrine disruptors, PCDD's (dioxins), also damaging our eco systems, in fact, our entire food chain. These chemicals escape from unregulated, poorly combusted industries (of which there are plenty).

Then there is the example of the Sydney Harbour where the "expert" regulators and state government allowed toxic industries, manufacturing chlorinated chemicals, to pollute our waterways.

Regulators have also been exposed for their incompetence regarding the catastrophe in the beautiful town of Esperance, seriously contaminated with lead after discovering the deaths of 4,000 birds and elevated lead levels in the population. This community has finally been advised not to fish from oceans and not to drink rainwater.

Today's West Australian newspaper reported that "The Bureau of Statistics found the number of endangered or vulnerable species of birds and animals climbed 44 per cent to 171 in 2006."

The measures required to cease contaminating this country with these pollutants is the same strategy necessary for mitigating anthropogenic CO2.

As any chemist will tell you, it's the dose which makes the poison!

And the sceptics continue to deny that the precipice we are tottering on is very narrow indeed.

Unfortunately it will be the pro-corporate, pro-industry ranters, colluding with compliant governments, who will resist the science of anthropogenic CO2 whilst continuing to poison this nation to its detriment.

Factual errors concerning both science and economics are legion in this article.

I’ll start from the top. For one, Des more quotes the productivity commission. However, in cherry picking statements, Des neglects the paragraph:

“It is in Australia's interest to participate in the design of a multilateral framework - for example, pressing for:
-emission caps for all major emitting countries that are supported by strong verification arrangements, and can react flexibly to new information;
-allowance to gain credits for emission reduction projects in other countries and also flexibility in rules on land cover change.”

While the commission states that

“Independent action by Australia … would deliver barely discernible climate benefits, but could be nationally very costly” the commission follows with

“Facilitating transition to an impending lower emissions economy is the strongest rationale for independent action, but it is contingent on the imminent emergence of an extensive international response”
(See www.pc.gov.au/research/submission/emissionstrading/keypoints.html)
In cherry picking, Des misrepresents the commission’s aims in the submission, which is a call for international uniformity in an emissions trading regime before unilateral action is taken.

With regards to the science, Des is guilty of both misrepresentation and misunderstanding. For a start, he immediately launches into an attack on the state-of-the-art of climatology by repeating the mantra of “uncertainty”, claiming that this makes climate science an insufficient base for policy.

For one, Des doesn’t seem to understand scientific uncertainty. When crystal ball gazing, as climatologists and meteorologists do, predictions will never be 100% accurate. However, scientific uncertainty. Primarily, uncertainties in the models reported in the Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) come from 2 sources:

- Aerosols, which reflect radiation and cool the plant;
- The uncertainty in emissions;

Also, unlike the economic modelling, scientific modelling is based on the laws of physics, chemistry and , basic laws from dynamics, electromagnetics and quantum mechanics. Models are validated statistically against past climate. To date, it’s true, they don’t get everything right, hence uncertainty. However, most good models have been remarkably good at reproducing the general trend for the last hundred years, PROVIDED, that CO2 forcings are included.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/51921/827

Part II

In science, uncertainties are generally reported as probabilities and bounds. Eg, the FAR reports that, based on the model, the temperature will be 1.8-4C higher than today’s, with a likelihood >90% of warmer days and fewer cold nights over land. The fact that the predictions report finite levels of uncertainty doesn’t make them useless. They give us an estimate of what is in store. So far, our guesses have been pretty much on the money.

It must be noted that climate science is not based upon only computer models. As I stated before, there is physics involved here. Detection and attribution studies (see http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/025.htm#e1) have concluded that later 20th warmth is due anthropogenic causes.

If modelling is ignored completely, we still have the basic physics and observations to fall back on (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/)

In short, finite uncertainty does not imply zero risk. While we cannot eliminate uncertainty, our best guess is that things are heating up, because of human activities, and the outlook is not good. Uncertainty is no reason for inaction

Des also mentions that the Stern review has it’s critics. True enough. Howver, he fails to mention that Stern (and others) have responded. See

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/01/stern-gang-eli-has-noted-that-there-are.html

and

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm.

also
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/stern-science/

In short, many of the claims made by critics are without merit, particularly in the science section, where notable contrarians Bob Carter and Richard Lindzen flog a few dead horses, and make a few silly errors

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/01/stern-reveiw-crushed-hmmmmmaybe-not.html

Finally, Des seems quick to dismiss carbon trading. I agree with Des that without a unified, international approach, Carbon trading is unlikely to work. However, emissions trading has been used in the past successfully. In the US

“Some experts argue that the "cap and trade" system of SO2 emissions reduction reduced the cost of controlling acid rain by as much as 80% versus source-by-source reduction”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

I won’t deny that cap and trade systems have their problems. However they are one of only two possibly measures I know of to put a cost on CO2 emissions (the other being a carbon tax). Notably, Des has not even touched this later approach.

Some Measure of Care

Part 1: Uranium

Part 2 : Retreat from Reason

“Sleepers wake” – we are on the cusp of a tipping year.
This is a clarion call, global warming – the Trojan horse

We live on a majestically dynamic planet with intertwining complexes.
Presently we are in an inter-glacial period with relatively minor warming cooling.
The variability in the Sun’s intensity is the controlling factor in Earth’s climate.
Cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds -
coupled with sunspot peak frequency,
cycles of global warming and cooling pulse like ocean waves.
Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur within small-scale cycles of about 40 years
existing within larger-scale cycles of 400 years,
which in turn exist within ice age cycles of 20,000 years.

Scenarios for future climate involve natural equations of infinite variables.
To assume human induced carbon emissions alone will significantly alter predictions is pretentious pseudo-science.
Advocating carbon change will change the way you live, but will not change future climate.

Climate environmentalism is a political mission,
offering disciples the delicious prospect of being in the right
and running things under the motherhood banner of saving the planet.
Superior morality supersedes factual argument and confers instant authority on disciples.

To accept the mantra of evil carbon is to invite the death of nationalism to dinner.

Belief in man-made global warming is also a religious phenomena.
In the battle between nature and humankind,
scientists and media have connived to make a good story,
and politicians of all colours have not been slow to see the advantages.

Future climate is not about your “belief”.
Science does not work by consensus (IPCC).
The process trickles incrementally, independently verifying facts.
The Greenhoax science will unravel by Xmas.

Human impact on future climate is a matter of degree
and needs to be assessed with “Some Measure of Care”.
Scaremongering sensationalism will result in the wrong measure.
Good environmental decision making means maximising future choice.
The decarbonisation road will end in a dead end, limiting individual and social choice for well into the future.
Wake-up and be counted this year.

To anyone sensible
left out there

Some Measure of Care

Part 1: The Uranium Story

I address my remarks to the Labor left and other god-like creatures.
If the truth can be told, so as to be understood, it will be believed.

Ideology like climate is dynamic.
Do you have the balls for it?

There’s blood in the water and you can taste it …
The delicious prospect of being in power and morally right.
Something the Liberals have only ever wondered on!

With all this global warming debacle,
the elephant in the room is uranium.

The masters of minerals have always been the masters of their age.
Today’s master mineral is uranium.
These masters will not sit on their hands much longer…
To deny them, runs the risk of forcing them to come and get it.

The developed world is not going to cripple itself to iron-out injustice.
The edifice of global warming science is an exercise in retreating from reason (see Part 2).
It’s being used as a vehicle to convey the left to the middle of the future – uranium... And (due mainly to your high moral passion) it’s working a charm.

As a stable (politically and geologically) first world country –
we are the prime suspect to supply, enrich and dispose of the nuclear fuel cycle - by leasing our products.

We are in the box seat to take a leading role
in achieving this important transition
between the energy sources of today and the new technologies of the future.

Accept the well endowed wealth of this lucky country.
But do it with secure safeguards based on real science –
not the superstition connived to corner you into this direction.
Be part of the march forward – with “some measure of care”.

"Do it with secure safeguards based on science."

Do you know anything about the "secure safeguards based on science" in the uranium industry in this country, Sir?

May I suggest you cease your condescending, inane sophistry and do some real research.

Commence with the articles on the Australian uranium company who was prosecuted last year and find $150,000 for supplying drinking and bathing water to workers which contained radiation 400 times greater than the "safe" level. Will these workers now be monitored for the rest of the lives? They haven't in the past - I doubt they will in the future. Then discover how many spills and leaks there have been in this industry.

Do you know of the disgraceful state the Yeleerie uranium mine was left in after it was abandoned with locals unwittingly swimming in the tailings dam?

Perform some real research into how incompetent the regulators are in this country where they consistently fail to "secure safeguards based on science" for the people of this nation.

Perhaps you'd also like to reflect on the abestos victims. Or what about those who died a painful death from silicosis (including my father) where the "regulators" knowingly considered these deaths as "collateral damage" whilst they shared their beds with "clients" from the big end of town.

It's a little late for you to advise those victims to: "Accept the well endowed wealth of this country."

"Be part of the march forward - with some measure of care."

Your naivety is part of the problem Eddy Lumpit - not the solution!

It will be your opponents embracing "the new technologies of the future" - not the old ones you are promoting!

Ahh..... speaking of the devil. Here's another thread posters may be interested in reading.

Call up "Perthnow" and click on "Defence Force covered-up radiation leak."

By the way, tomorrow is the start of a parliamentary enquiry in Western Australia, into why DEC and the DOH failed to protect citizens and the environment from the catastrophic lead and nickel fall-out in Esperance.

These frauds couldn't detect a beer in a brewery let alone safely regulate the uranium industry or a nuclear reactor!

Little wonder the equilibrium of CO2 is out of whack!

actually, perseus, a fair number of very rich people are worried about climate change and co2 emissions. more importantly, as 'governator' put it: 98% of climatologists are worried so he's worried.

are you in fact a climate scholar? if your own research, not so far published, supports your argument, let's read about it in 'nature'. or are you basing your argument on the other 2%? this is not a matter where bank balances count for much, perseus, is that a source of concern?

Carbon trading the answer to "fighting" climate change.

Are these people serious, at all? Their only answer is a tax? This is what economists do. Think about money, as do our current and possible "leaders".

Tax will fix the climate. Money is the anser to everything. Tripe.

Perseus, I applaud your approach and most of what you have written here. Carbon trading will be the second biggest fraud, behind religion, of all time. Making profits is the ONLY purpose of any trading scheme. Don't people understand that yet? Profit. Nothing to do with anything but money. Think about it. Money is a tool man created to allow trading of resources, mainly man's labour. Money is fool's gold to use a monetary analogy.

When are the media and these mindless politicians and economists going to stop this drivel? Yes, I know. Never.

Fight climate change? You might as well you know what into the wind. We, mere humans, cannot "fight" the climate. It's an insane notion to even consider this as an option.

What we can, should and must do though is adapt to the changing climate. Adapt, not fight. Start now, not when it's 150 degrees and water is only found in other countries or the ocean.

Build those pipelines now from the north to the south. Build the infrastructure to cope with the changes, not this mindless rubbish about fighting it.

As an example of how ridiculous this line is will someone please tell me how we fight a cyclone? Do we shoot it, nuke it or just attack it with our bare hands? Do you get it yet? These politicians and self proclaimed experts have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Perhaps we could shadow box with the sun? Might as well, it's equally as stupid an idea.

Eddy

you would be suprised that people are listening even though not labor.

They labor and the liberal party's are both on a collision course of enviromental vandalism.

They know that uranium is dangerous, but the major fact is waste.

Maybe they have a deal to bury the waste here in australia maybe not.

The Australian Peoples Party is for no new uranium mines and also uranium powered reators.

even though 10 years is a long time i believe that will be when we start to see the new generation of power technology.

Also regarding labors loan, what a joke.

I have already worked out that the cost of the individual househoder will be 4 thousand dollars interest free.
The government will pitch the rest.
This will also include jobs.

This in all will take till 2013 to have this fully rolled out.
not bad.

The goverment has been using rebates for a while so lets use it for worthwhile use, also the money being wasted will be funned for real use not just advertising.

But who am i knowbody.

You all have made you choice.

www.tapp.org.au

Carbon Trading and Carbon Credits on their own are not going to be enough to change the system but they are a start and they can be made more effective.

An approach is to invent another currency backed by regular currencies but where the currency can only be "redeemed" for regular currencies if you spend the currency on greenhouse reduction infrastructure.

Thus whenever carbon credits are purchased the buyer deposits the amount of money required into a "Currency holding account" and pays the seller in this currency. The currency has limitations on how it can be redeemed for regular currencies. The limitations are that it must be spent on greenhouse savings infrastructure or projects be they research into techniques, windmills, insulation for houses, solar cells etc.

Even if the carbon trading scheme is compromised the money will still be spent on ways to reduce greenhouse gases and perverting the spending of money on "real things" is harder to abuse than spending money on invented commodities like carbon credits.

Carbon Trading;
It seems like a goldern opertunity for the international
fraudsters who normally operate in the international monetary fraud area.

It would be very difficult to prove that emmissions were still reduced
after the certificate had ben issued. It has proven almost impossible
to stop interlectual property fraud in Asia, so what makes anyonyone
think the same "wide boys" won't be right onto the bag of gold known
as carbon trading ?

ChrisC

If the IPCC documentation is so infallible as you seem to suggest,then tell me why it is that on Page 4/18 of the WG1 they show Figure SPM 2 "Radiative Forcing Ccomponents"and clearly indicate the Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU),and the error bars for each of the sources of forcing.

For instance, for "Total Aerosols" including clouds, they are saying we actually know bugger all about it, but by the estimated size of the forcings involved, aerosols alone would cancel it all out.

It would certainly make any mathematical models based upon this data, highly dubious, if not comletely unreliable.

But then only gullible warmers, and the CSIRO, would have us believe that one can predict with some reliability what is likely to happen in 100 years time based upon models that have had their parametric elements tweeked, so that there is a force fit to current data. But when one is tweeking for elements they admit not knowing much about it is quite farcical.

As for the flaws in the econometric modelling the comment by Ainsley Kellow is relevant It is quite wilful for the IPCC to persist with abolute nonsense despite it being pointed out by the reviewers.

"There is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication no matter how flawed it might be."

All in all, not the sort of stufuf one would bet the Treasury on, is it.

Hi Bigmal,

I had a look at SPM fig 2, as you suggest. I really don't see what your problem with the figure, or the IPCC in general is (for those who are interested, the report can be downloaded here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/).

Now, look at the bottom of the figure, marked "Total Net Anthropogenic". This gives a net radiative forcing of +1.6W/m2, with a confidence interval of +0.6W/m2 (min) to + 2.4W/m2 (max). Please note that you can't just add up, the individual components because the error is distributed. The further away from the “middle” value, the less likely it is, so the confidence intervals do not add up linearly. (see: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConfidenceInterval.html for an explanation).

Now, it's true that there are uncertainties, particularly with aerosols. A good discussion of this is:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/aerosols-the-last-frontier/ )

Aerosols don’t change the fact that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in increased radiative forcing. The uncertainties are reported as the errors in the model predictions (eg SPM 4 and SPM 5).

Uncertainty does not imply that the results are useless.
For example, figure SPM 5 tells me that, for the B1 senario, there is a 68.2% probability that the average surface temperature will be 1.4 and 2.2C warmer than the 1980 – 1990 average.

However, the dominant uncertainty is the emissions (see fig SPM 5). They also don’t include carbon-cycle feedbacks or advanced ice-sheet dynamics (page 14). This is likely to underestimate warming.

Also, models are not “tweaked” to conform to observations. This is not true. Models are tested and validated rigorously, by attempting to reproduce phenomena, such as the 1991 eruption of Pinatubo, as well as reproducing the ENSO cycle, and other natural variations.

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-60/iss-1/72_1.html

Parameterisation of certain variables (ie cloud formation) is done both statistically and using physics.

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/model-intro.php#par_ame

However, for the most part, climate models are driven by physics of the climate system

See also
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/modeller-vs-modeller/

I don’t mean to imply that models are perfect. But they give our best guess, and they’ve been pretty spot on up until now. We ignore the climate scientists at our peril.

ChrisC

Thank you for your thoughtful response and the references.I am aware and have read most of these, and dont derive the same confidence that you do.

For example the feed back effect of clouds has a huge impact and is clearly highly uncertain, but still the modellers say they are good enough for us to invest the farm in a prediction that goes out 100 years. That is just not credible.

Further there may be X100 scientists involved in producing these reports but when some of the authors and reviewers, have the same view that Aynlsey Kellow makes, and he is not alone, then it casts doubt on the integrity of whole IPCC exercise.ie The IPCC is so hide bound, and single minded in one direction against anything not in accord with the group think view is automatically sifted out, so that only the extreme and dire is presented. The CSIRO here does the same thing. That makes me and many others very suspicious.

When someone presents a Business Plan or prospectus like this any investor would just walk away.

Also the evidence presented by the IPCC documents still does not, establish unambiguous cause and effect to the same degree one would expect in medicine. There is some warming occuring, which is having some effect in some areas, but is it unambigously the consequence of more C02?. Not on your nelly.

Fianlly I am still left with the condundrum ( one of many). Why is it that the Modtran3 model of radiative transfer shows that the flux at the top of the atmosphere flat lines, with increases in C02.ie the more we add the less the warming effect and this is suported by satellite measurements.

One last condundrum, have a google of the River Tornio in Finland and explain to me why the date for when the river becomes free of ice in Spring, shows a consistent trend SINCE 1690.ie long before coal fired power stations and 4wd's

BTW I think the authors points in the article herein are on the mark.

Spot on, Big Mal, thanks Pegasus.

Of equal impact on climate change is variations in the rate of absorption and reflection (albedo) in the landscape. The clearing of a forest will release large volumes of CO2 in the atmosphere which, in theory, will tend to warm things up.

But that clearing will also reduce the absorption and increase the albedo of the modified landscape and this will cool things down.

The problem is that the IPCC muddlers are only measuring the carbon released. And in most cases long before the carbon actually gets into the atmosphere. So the, limited, warming part of the equation is factored in immediately while the long term, cumulative, cooling part is left out altogether.

And surprise, surprise, their climate muddles predict runaway warming.

But if a farmer is to be penalised for releasing carbon when he clears (mostly regrowth) forest, then why is there no equivalent system of "cooling credits" that he will earn and accumulate for as long as his paddock remains as a paddock?

And why can't I get "cooling credits" for converting my heat absorbing roof tiles to heat reflecting silver roof iron?