Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Environment >> Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1482474459

Message started by Redmond Neck on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 4:27pm

Title: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Redmond Neck on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 4:27pm
Released just before the Christmas Close Down....How Convenient

Turnbull government confirms Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are rising
Adam Morton

    Adam Morton

The government has confirmed Australia's greenhouse gas emissions are rising, and projected that it will not get near its 2030 climate target under current policies.

But the country remains on track to "meet and beat" the less ambitious 2020 target of a 5 per cent cut in emissions compared to 2000 levels.

Released in the shadow of the Christmas holidays, the Environment Department greenhouse accounts show national emissions rose 0.8 per cent in the year to June. Here are the changes in emissions for the June quarter over the past decade:



The department analysis shows the increase largely came from electricity generation - the country used more power without much change in its reliance on fossil fuels - and new liquefied natural gas projects.

In per capita terms, emissions per person continued to fall - to less than 23 tonnes of carbon dioxide, down from about 26 tonnes a decade ago - as population growth outpaced the rise in pollution.

In terms of future emissions, the government continues to revise down projections. While they remain well above the 2030 target (a 26-28 per cent cut compared with 2005 levels), the gap has closed significantly in the past year.

Despite this, all parts of the economy are expected to have higher emissions in 2030 than in 2020. It is expected Australians will be using more electricity, more polluting transport and running larger agricultural herds to meet overseas demand.

National emissions in 2030 are projected to be 592 million tonnes - see the blue line below. Last year, they were projected to be 724 million tonnes (the red line below). But to meet the target they will need to be less than 450 million tonnes (the dotted lines below).



Australian Conservation Foundation economist Matt Rose said the government was failing to cut climate pollution, and was holding back evidence of its poor performance from the public.

Documents released to the foundation after a Freedom of Information request showed it had been sitting on the data since September, but chose to release it just three days before Christmas.

"If the Government is so embarrassed by the results it should improve its policies," he said.

But Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg said Australia was on target to beat its 2020 target and had made significant process in reaching the 2030 target.

He said Australia's per capita emissions and emissions per unit of GDP were at their lowest level in 27 years.

"Our policies, like the emissions reduction fund, are working to reduce Australia's emissions at low cost, without driving up the price of electricity like Labor's carbon tax did," he said.

Labor climate spokesman Mark Butler said the greenhouse results under Malcolm Turnbull were worse than those under "known climate sceptic" Tony Abbott.

The report notes that emissions projections are inherently uncertain, and the uncertainty becomes greater the further you go into the future. Australia's emissions projections have become lower year on year, often due to businesses and households outstripping Canberra in embracing cleaner practice.

They are certain to change again. Current projections do not factor in policies that are yet to be fully introduced but have been flagged, including a national energy productivity plan to improve efficiency, a program to cut emissions from cars and state renewable energy targets.

The government is reviewing climate policies next year, but has already ruled out any form of carbon pricing that would penalise big emitters.

Business and environment groups are urging the government to keep all options, including a form of carbon pricing known as an emission intensity scheme, open to ensure cuts are made as cheaply as possible.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/turnbull-government-confirms-australias-greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-rising-20161222-gtgolq




Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 7:27pm
It doth appear that whichever association that's running the denialist angle around here is having its Christmas break  ;)

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 8:41pm
Australia is a carbon sink. Net emissions therefore are below 0.

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 9:48pm
::)

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 23rd, 2016 at 11:05pm



Or you can go to Australia's chief scientist, read the paper, assume conservative values, and do the math yourself. Well given your propensity for math; perhaps not.

edit: forgot the link.

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 24th, 2016 at 12:00am
The fact that we are a carbon sink is pretty irrelevant to the larger picture, Given that we do kind of share the atmosphere. And happily sell coal to countries which are not net carbon sinks.


Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 24th, 2016 at 2:57pm

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24th, 2016 at 12:00am:
The fact that we are a carbon sink is pretty irrelevant to the larger picture, Given that we do kind of share the atmosphere. And happily sell coal to countries which are not net carbon sinks.



The headline post is about Australia's GHG's rising. That is the topic. Stay on it doofus.

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 24th, 2016 at 7:09pm
Id say that any topic which includes green house gasses in the title pretty much implies that discussion of the green house effect is to be expected.

Isn't that why you wanted to draw attention to out our total emissions as opposed to the failure of successive CO2 emission targets?    




Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 24th, 2016 at 10:01pm

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24th, 2016 at 7:09pm:
Isn't that why you wanted to draw attention to out our total emissions as opposed to the failure of successive CO2 emission targets?    



Who cares about missions targets when we are a carbon sink? You want us to be a party to climate change reparations, when we are not a net emitter?

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 25th, 2016 at 1:29am

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24th, 2016 at 12:00am:
The fact that we are a carbon sink is pretty irrelevant to the larger picture, Given that we do kind of share the atmosphere.




Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 25th, 2016 at 11:01am

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 1:29am:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24th, 2016 at 12:00am:
The fact that we are a carbon sink is pretty irrelevant to the larger picture, Given that we do kind of share the atmosphere.


Yep. So any climate reparations should come to us for helping the world get rid of this dangerous , nasty stuff. ;)

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by AnotherJourneyByTrain on Dec 25th, 2016 at 12:01pm


--> PaNIC IS now!

:o

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by AnotherJourneyByTrain on Dec 25th, 2016 at 12:04pm
From data gathered by IABP

http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_table.html

N 84 47.400 E 165 4.200
14.64 n. miles NW (312°)

Buoy 48580 3 day displacement Russian side of the Pole, 5 nautical miles a day! Huge…

Further North:

N 84 18.000 E 81 59.400
25.59 n. miles W (259°)

buoy 48770 3 day displacement 25.6 nautical miles. Monster speed.

It looks bad if data and calculations are confirmed. Fluidity means lack of consolidation, implying persistent open water leads as sea ice moves swiftly.

Posted by: wayne | December 24, 2016 at 23:38


SOURCE: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/12/the-11th-key-science-moment-of-2016.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb09636acb970d#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb09636acb970d

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 25th, 2016 at 12:30pm
You mean there are Arctic currents? These are supposed to be static? Who knew?

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 25th, 2016 at 5:59pm

lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 11:01am:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 1:29am:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 24th, 2016 at 12:00am:
The fact that we are a carbon sink is pretty irrelevant to the larger picture, Given that we do kind of share the atmosphere.


Yep. So any climate reparations should come to us for helping the world get rid of this dangerous , nasty stuff. ;)


Totally separate issue, but ill note it as another example of you being happy to let to rely on the AGW movement when it suits the point your trying to make.

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:08pm

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 5:59pm:
Totally separate issue, but ill note it as another example of you being happy to let to rely on the AGW movement when it suits the point your trying to make.


Yep. because the AGW movement is inconsistent. You do understand that; don't you?

I keep pointing out the inconsistencies, you just don't want to know.

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:28pm

lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:08pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 5:59pm:
Totally separate issue, but ill note it as another example of you being happy to let to rely on the AGW movement when it suits the point your trying to make.


Yep. because the AGW movement is inconsistent. You do understand that; don't you?

I keep pointing out the inconsistencies, you just don't want to know.


I'm happy to talk about the minor inconsistencies if your happy to accept the overall conclusions.

There is heaps of room for debate on the factors affecting global climate, but because you refuse to acknowledge CO2 as being the main driver of climate warming(which is the fundamental conclusion of every single credible paper you publish) it is difficult to have a balanced conversation with you.
   

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:10pm

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:28pm:
I'm happy to talk about the minor inconsistencies if your happy to accept the overall conclusions.



You don't get it do you? All the "minor" inconsistencies add up to large inconsistency. You just want to look at each in isolation, without factoring in what it does to the "overall conclusion".


Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:28pm:
because you refuse to acknowledge CO2 as being the main driver of climate warming



It is the "main driver" of climate warming I refuse to acknowledge. Most studies explicitly do not consider water vapour and yet it is by far the most abundant so-called GHG.

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:29pm

lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:28pm:
I'm happy to talk about the minor inconsistencies if your happy to accept the overall conclusions.



You don't get it do you? All the "minor" inconsistencies add up to large inconsistency. You just want to look at each in isolation, without factoring in what it does to the "overall conclusion".



I've never proposed that contributing factors be considered in isolation. They have to be considered with ALL other known variables(including CO2).

If you ever want to look at how current models attribute Forcings to different variables then go nuts, but you have to look at all the variables.




lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 6:28pm:
because you refuse to acknowledge CO2 as being the main driver of climate warming



It is the "main driver" of climate warming I refuse to acknowledge. Most studies explicitly do not consider water vapour and yet it is by far the most abundant so-called GHG.


That's blatantly untrue. "Some" older studies may exclude water vapor, but all the modern studies accept its role and include it in their models. (You don't want me to argue about out of date science again do you?)



Here are several credible peer reviewed documents examining in detail the relationships between CO2 and water vapour, and how it can be considered in relationship to all the other minor climatic drivers.


Colman, R., 2003: A comparison of climate feedbacks in GCMs. Climate Dyn

Senior, C. A., and J. F. B. Mitchell, 1993: Carbon dioxide and climate: The impact of cloud parameterization. J. Climate

Cess, R. D., and Coauthors, 1990: Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric GCMs. J. Geophys. Res


Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:34pm

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:29pm:
If you ever want to look at how current models attribute Forcings to different variables then go nuts, but you have to look at all the variables.


Then why do the GCM's omit so many? Why so many parameters?
I've shown you Chapter 9 of AR5.
Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:29pm:
That's blatantly untrue. "Some" older studies may exclude water vapor, but all the modern studies accept its role and include it in their models.



Again refer to Chapter9 AR5.
Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:29pm:
Colman, R., 2003: A comparison of climate feedbacks in GCMs. Climate Dyn

Senior, C. A., and J. F. B. Mitchell, 1993: Carbon dioxide and climate: The impact of cloud parameterization. J. Climate

Cess, R. D., and Coauthors, 1990: Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric GCMs. J. Geophys. Res



You do realise these pre-date AR5?

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by Pho Huc on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:43pm

lee wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:34pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:29pm:
If you ever want to look at how current models attribute Forcings to different variables then go nuts, but you have to look at all the variables.


I've shown you Chapter 9 of AR5.




Yes you have. If your trying to make a more specific point than that maybe do a little but more typing, Im not telepathic -

As I recall you misquoted a line from it which you thought proved one of your nit picky little obfuscations, And then I asked you to provide a piece of credible scientific research for your opinion, and then you obfuscated.
It certainly wasnt a devastating counter argument if that's what you think........



But again, if you want to have a discussion about how our GHG's, land clearing, ocean acidification, permafrost melt, albedo variation  etc etc etc
Then Im all ears.
I will continue to reference the body of credible work on this field to support my statements, and it would be great if you could approach with the same positive intent,

Title: Re: Govt Confirms Greenhouse Gases Rising
Post by lee on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:56pm

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 25th, 2016 at 7:43pm:
Yes you have. If your trying to make a more specific point than that maybe do a little but more typing, Im not telepathic -



You go to Chapter 9
You scroll down to Table 9.5 page 78
If you can't read sideways you may have to rotate the image.

At either fourth from the top of the page or fourth from the right margin, depending on orientation, you will find the figures for water feedback. Note all models do not have figures. One must assume they are somehow "paramaterised". Why would they not give their data?


Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.