Monday, June 15, 2009

Who would have tipped that Tip would tip?

Staunch to the last:

Andrew Bolt

Monday, June 15, 2009 at 02:53pm

Nice profile on the (perhaps) next member for Higgins. I suspect, however, that Peter Costello will make the impressive John Roskam wait.


No sooner predicted than contradicted. Roskam is as startled by the news as am I:

PETER Costello has finally put an end to speculation about his future, confirming he will not contest the next election. The former Treasurer announced this afternoon he would not renominate for party endorsement in his seat of Higgins.

Andrew must have had a late lunch. His bloggers started rolling in with the tragic news at 02:02pm:

Peter Costello will be the sitting member that gets pre selected. Anyone that thinks different is off with the fairies. gulp

Daniel of Sydney (Reply)
Mon 15 Jun 09 (12:56pm)
Tracey Conlan replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:02pm)

After announcing he will not contest the next elecion, do you feel a little silly ?

Dont worry. Mr Bolt was wrong as well!

Stu Morgan replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:08pm)

Unfortunately, the fairies are very real. :(

polytickle replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:08pm)


Looking forward to you posting a picture of yourself in your “fairy tutu” smile

Aslan replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:09pm)

According to his website, he has announced that he will stand down and leave politics.


Janine I replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:10pm)

I suspect, however, that Peter Costello will make the impressive John Roskam wait.

Costello just said differently.

Shaun replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:18pm)

Oops.. ha ha. Sorry, your messiah is gone.

Alan of Sydney replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:19pm)

Hey Dan, maybe there really is fairies at the bottom of your garden....

Rudi replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:22pm)

How about them fairies hey Daniel?

LH replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:27pm)

You were saying, Daniel? LOL

Valleys Boy replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:29pm)


You were saying?

rob of glen iris replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (02:35pm)

Well, I guess it takes a fairy to know one. When it comes to getting things wrong about PC, you and AB stand out! red face

Bill O Tas replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (03:05pm)

Daniel, you deserve some kind of prize! tongue laugh

bennoba replied to Daniel
Mon 15 Jun 09 (03:08pm)

Janine I is back!

If Andrew Bolt has been so wrong about Peter Costello for so long, is it possible he could be wrong about other things he campaigns for... like anthropogenic global warming.

Sunday, June 14, 2009

1 tonne of co2 equals 0.0000000000015 °C of global warming

From my unscientific understanding, if the latest findings of Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University's Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment bear out, then the public understanding of AGW will have it's smoking gun. Matthews and his colleagues claim to have found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.

The latest edition of Nature, June 11, 2009, published the findings from a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change.

Science Daily reported:

Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change. Matthews and colleagues show that despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.

These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change. If we want to restrict global warming to no more than 2 degrees, we must restrict total carbon emissions – from now until forever – to little more than half a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about as much again as we have emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

"Most people understand that carbon dioxide emissions lead to global warming," says Matthews, "but it is much harder to grasp the complexities of what goes on in between these two end points. Our findings allow people to make a robust estimate of their contribution to global warming based simply on total carbon dioxide emissions."

Here's the Abstract:

The proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions

H. Damon Matthews1, Nathan P. Gillett2, Peter A. Stott3 & Kirsten Zickfeld2

Nature 459, 829-832 (11 June 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08047

Abstract: The global temperature response to increasing atmospheric CO2 is often quantified by metrics such as equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response1. These approaches, however, do not account for carbon cycle feedbacks and therefore do not fully represent the net response of the Earth system to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Climate–carbon modelling experiments have shown that: (1) the warming per unit CO2 emitted does not depend on the background CO2 concentration2; (2) the total allowable emissions for climate stabilization do not depend on the timing of those emissions3, 4, 5; and (3) the temperature response to a pulse of CO2 is approximately constant on timescales of decades to centuries3, 6, 7, 8. Here we generalize these results and show that the carbon–climate response (CCR), defined as the ratio of temperature change to cumulative carbon emissions, is approximately independent of both the atmospheric CO2 concentration and its rate of change on these timescales. From observational constraints, we estimate CCR to be in the range 1.0–2.1 °C per trillion tonnes of carbon (Tt C) emitted (5th to 95th percentiles), consistent with twenty-first-century CCR values simulated by climate–carbon models. Uncertainty in land-use CO2 emissions and aerosol forcing, however, means that higher observationally constrained values cannot be excluded. The CCR, when evaluated from climate–carbon models under idealized conditions, represents a simple yet robust metric for comparing models, which aggregates both climate feedbacks and carbon cycle feedbacks. CCR is also likely to be a useful concept for climate change mitigation and policy; by combining the uncertainties associated with climate sensitivity, carbon sinks and climate–carbon feedbacks into a single quantity, the CCR allows CO2-induced global mean temperature change to be inferred directly from cumulative carbon emissions.

More about Damon Matthews' work: Chasing climate change

Australia's climate bill may be scuttled

The ETS circus plays on:

Australian Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne said the Government would also have no alternative but to reverse its plan to link passage of the emissions bill to renewable energy measures.

"The [emissions trading] bill will be defeated. There is no question about that," she told ABC Television.

"The Government hasn't been able to reach a compromise with the Coalition and in terms of the Greens, the Government has not come back with more ambitious targets on the table.

"We are determined that Australia plays its fair share internationally."

Senator Milne said the UN meeting in Bonn was now declaring that the main roadblock to a global agreement at the Copenhagen climate change conference later this year was the lack of ambition from developed countries.

She said emissions reductions targets between 16-24 per cent were on the table and that was nowhere near the 25-45 per cent needed for developed countries.

Senator Milne said the Government had added a complication by tying renewable energy target legislation to passage of the emissions reduction scheme.

"The Government is going to have to back down on that because so many businesses around the country are desperate to get going with expanding renewable energy."

As we know, Family First's Stephen Fielding has been blinded by staring at the sun for too long when hanging out with fellow gullibles at the Heartland Institute of Kitchen Science and Propaganda. He's no bloody use to Labor (but at least he is more honest and open in his denial than the damned Liberals), so if Big Kev wants to get his second-best emissions scheme though, he's gonna have to bite the bullet and turn it into the first best plan.

Hey Kevin, as still per the last election, Aussies want to be world leaders in the new carbon economy, starting today; if you won't give us that chance, we'll find a leader who will.

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Crime will organise to go green

So suggest sooths spotted by Desmogblog.

Just in time for the rocked Australian biker club scene, desperate as they are to rehabilitate their public image after the Sydney Airport brawl showed them up to be the mongrels they are.

Future Banditos and Notorious meetings to resolve grievances will be so much more in line with public sensibilities: The fat biker wog turns to the skinny biker wog, "You fucked with my cousin's carbon credits." And the other says, "I didn't for shit, hey", and he pulls out an ETS: CHK CHK BOOM.

Fielding staring at the sun for too long

My reaction to the news of Senator Stephen Fielding coming back from attending an AGW denier's conference hosted by the Heartland Institute, is that he seeks to betray the path of ETS legislation for thirty pieces of Big Fossil-Fuel silver. My evidence? Simply that Fielding is replaying their great canard, 'It's the sun, stupid'.

Professor Barry Brook's reaction is to patiently explain why the peer-review science says Fielding is wrong. He sets out thus:

‘Solar variability does not explain late-20th-century warming’, says the title of a short paper published earlier this year by Philip Duffy, Ben Santer and Tom Wigley in Physics Today. The reason I bring up the topic of the sun and climate now is that an Australian Senator, Stephen Fielding of the Family First party, has recently been concerned that the solar variability could be a cause of recent warming, as the vote for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme comes before the Upper House. Apparently, he got this information from the American Heartland Institute. Well, let me put the good Senator’s concerns to rest.

He puts mine to rest... read it... leaving only concerns about Fielding himself.

Punters and pundits call the Arctic Summer Melt

It's that time of the year, when types that think about these things, turn their attention to predicting what this year's lowest Arctic sea-ice extent will be. Eli Rabbet kicks off with a rough round-up of pundits and early predictions. There are rumours of money changing hands.

If none of this makes sense to you, here's the good oil from a Kiwi called Gareth of Hot Topic. And, as a GWW service to the AGW denier trolls who pop in to post, here's your side of the story.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

US Emissions Talks With China Hit Great Wall

Five months ahead of the Copenhagen talks, a round of climate talks between the world's two biggest polluters has stalled, reports the Financial Times:

Chinese officials maintained that the two countries should have a “common but differentiated approach” – code for Beijing’s reluctance to adopt a formal domestic mandate to reduce its carbon emissions. The US Congress is considering a bill that would reduce US emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. China wants the US to cut its emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – a different order of magnitude. It also wants the US to pledge up to 1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pay for clean technology in China and elsewhere.

“It is going to be really tough to get the Chinese to make significant concessions by Copenhagen,” said Bruce Braine, a board member of the International Emissions Trading Association. “There seems to be a lack of realism in ... the developing world about what the US can achieve at home.”

It can be argued that there seems to be a lack of realism in the developed world about who has emitted most of the greenhouse gasses that have created the global warming we have consequently experienced to date. Nevertheless, the US and China are in this together, as we all are. The more united we are, the better off we will be; just as, the sooner we move, the better off we will be.