Gas leak: Government tries to release its greenhouse news on the quiet
https://1v1d1e1lmiki1lgcvx32p49h8fe-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/1538194528-greenhouse-gas.jpg

Quote:

The Morrison government stands accused of trying to sneak-release the latest greenhouse gas emission figures – they’ve gone up, again – by making them public on the eve of the footy grand finals. The figures are the latest evidence that Australia will fail to meet its Paris Agreement targets, despite the government’s claims to the contrary. In the year to March 2018, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions rose by 1.3 per cent – totalling 529.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent – according to new figures published late Friday afternoon by the Department of Environment and Energy. This means that gas emissions stand at the highest level since 2010 – prior to Julia Gillard’s misnamed carbon tax being introduced. Under the cover of darkness The Climate Council’s acting CEO, Martin Rice, via email, said: “The federal government is taking out the trash under the cover of darkness in order to hide our rubbish results on greenhouse gas pollution.” Dr Rice said Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution levels have been consistently rising for three years, while the government had failed to roll out any credible climate and energy policy. “The result of this inaction is Australia is now further away from effectively tackling climate change than ever before,” he said. “Australians continue to witness the impact of accelerating climate change across the nation, through extreme weather events including soaring temperatures, bushfires and drought.” Caught on the hop A spokesman for the Greens, speaking informally, said the party had been caught on the hop by the furtive release, and had not yet had time to fully analyse the figures. A statement from the Greens climate change and energy spokesman Adam Bandt said: “Dumping this terrible news on grand final eve is a disgrace. Pollution is going up, the government boasts it has no renewables policy and global warming is getting worse.” Australian Conservation Foundation Chief Executive Officer, Kelly O’Shanassy, said: “This latest pollution scorecard casts extreme doubt over the Morrison government’s claim that Australia will meet our 2030 emissions reduction target ‘in a canter’ without strong new action. “Slipping this latest data out late on a Friday as Australians prepare for the football grand finals shows that the Morrison government is embarrassed by its lack of climate change action.” Australia’s Paris climate commitment is to reduce 2005 level pollution by 26-28 per cent by 2030. Emissions have been trending higher for about four years. The good news aspect of the report is also embarrassing for a government leery of the extent that renewables should play a part in energy policy – if we were to actually have one. There was a drop of 4.3 per cent in emissions from the electricity sector, where most of our pollution comes from coal power stations, because of the increasing construction of renewables such as solar and wind power – as required by Australia’s national Renewable Energy Target. As Kelly O’Shanassy observed: “The Morrison government has declared it will not replace this target after 2020, meaning Australian climate pollution is at risk of growing even further.” There was also a decline in emissions from land use change, with emissions down 5.2 per cent. Overall, emissions were 134.7 million tonnes, the highest quarterly figure since September 2010. Renewables helped, gas production didn’t So what caused the jump? Fugitive emissions jumped 13.7 per cent. Fugitive emissions, according to the Climate Change Authority, are the gases that leak or are vented during the extraction, production, processing, storage, transmission and distribution of fossil fuels such as coal, crude oil and natural gas. Emissions from decommissioned underground coal mines are also included in this sector. But most of the fugitive emissions were from increased productivity in the gas sector. Environment Minister Melissa Price said per-capita emission levels were now 36 per cent below 1990 levels. Well, you’d hope so, because per capita levels in 1990 were through the roof – according to a government greenhouse inventory graph. “The latest report on Australia’s national greenhouse gas inventory released today clearly shows Australia is on track to beat its 2020 emissions target,” Minister Price said in a statement. But if this was a good news story, why release it on the eve of Australia’s biggest sporting weekend?

They're going up in China too. But no one cares about that. And Germany too.

And Australia is still a carbon sink.

So direct action is another notch in libtards belt of failures

Its time wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:26pm:

So direct action is another notch in libtards belt of failures

So you expect more of Australia than China or Germany?

And that, of course, assumes that CO2 is actually a "bad" thing. ;)

"Renewables helped, gas production didn’t"

Damn. just the last couple of months gas was the saviour. So much better than coal. Oh well just invest in more renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:29pm:

Its time wrote on Oct 1st, 2018 at 7:26pm: So direct action is another notch in libtards belt of failures So you expect more of Australia than China or Germany? And that, of course, assumes that CO2 is actually a "bad" thing. ;) "Renewables helped, gas production didn’t" Damn. just the last couple of months gas was the saviour. So much better than coal. Oh well just invest in more renewables. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I see you're posting your usual rubbish with no citations that demonstrates your ossification of thought.

I've got news for you. It's not the 20th century any more.

BTW - New paper

"Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation linear due to H2O greenhouse effect"

"The team found this linear relationship breaks down when Earth’s global average surface temperatures go much beyond 300 K, or 80 F. In such a scenario, it would be much more difficult for the Earth to shed heat at roughly the same rate as its surface warms. For now, that number is hovering around 285 K, or 53 F. "

http://news.mit.edu/2018/how-earth-sheds-heat-space-0924

Only 26F before it breaks down. Apparently .

And H2O controls temp? oh dear.

BTW - the above is another model based study. Do with it what you wish.

lee wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:48pm:

BTW - New paper "Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation linear due to H2O greenhouse effect" "The team found this linear relationship breaks down when Earth’s global average surface temperatures go much beyond 300 K, or 80 F. In such a scenario, it would be much more difficult for the Earth to shed heat at roughly the same rate as its surface warms. For now, that number is hovering around 285 K, or 53 F. " http://news.mit.edu/2018/how-earth-sheds-heat-space-0924 Only 26F before it breaks down. Apparently . And H2O controls temp? oh dear.

That's why it's called a "runaway greenhouse." Once the water vapour starts making a critical contribution, it is game over because it accelerates in a positive feedback. It won't stop until the oceans boil away and are lost to space. When does that happen? Nobody knows for sure but it could be closer than we think.

Do you want to see the future of this planet? Look at Venus. Earth will be like that one day. If human activity wasn't contributing, Earth will become uninhabitable between one and two billion years from now due to increased solar activity. That cannot be stopped. However, it can be accelerated, and that's what is happening right now. That's why we need to turn down the thermostat.

The worst part is not what we know. It's what we don't know. What happens when we warm up the permafrost where a lot of methane is trapped? What happens if the methane clathrates in the oceans start escaping? How much warming before it becomes irreversible?

the only graph that Joe Lunchbox cares about is the electricity price graph.
time to build a coal plant .
the japanese are building 48 of them
they are smart people.
they could come and build a couple for us .

greenhouse gases :D :D :D


the longest ski season ever in the snowy mountains this year.
still minus 2 in canberra.

luckt they didnt take Flannerys advice and close thredbo

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:15am:

the only graph that Joe Lunchbox cares about is the electricity price graph. time to build a coal plant . the japanese are building 48 of them they are smart people. they could come and build a couple for us .

Citation needed.

Time to show the "time to build a coal plant" sickos a calendar and explain to them that it's not the 20th century anymore and new, cheaper technology is available.


aquascoot wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 6:15am:

greenhouse gases :D :D :D the longest ski season ever in the snowy mountains this year. still minus 2 in canberra. luckt they didnt take Flannerys advice and close thredbo

Uneducated people confuse climate with weather and don't use proper punctuation or capitalisation. Are you one of these people?  :-?

Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 9:39am:

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: the only graph that Joe Lunchbox cares about is the electricity price graph. time to build a coal plant . the japanese are building 48 of them they are smart people. they could come and build a couple for us . Citation needed. Time to show the "time to build a coal plant" sickos a calendar and explain to them that it's not the 20th century anymore and new, cheaper technology is available. aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: greenhouse gases :D :D :D the longest ski season ever in the snowy mountains this year. still minus 2 in canberra. luckt they didnt take Flannerys advice and close thredbo Uneducated people confuse climate with weather and don't use proper punctuation or capitalisation. Are you one of these people?  :-?

uneducated people listen to people like flannery who have vested financial interests in the rubbish they spruke

Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 9:39am:

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: the only graph that Joe Lunchbox cares about is the electricity price graph. time to build a coal plant . the japanese are building 48 of them they are smart people. they could come and build a couple for us . Citation needed. Time to show the "time to build a coal plant" sickos a calendar and explain to them that it's not the 20th century anymore and new, cheaper technology is available. aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: greenhouse gases :D :D :D the longest ski season ever in the snowy mountains this year. still minus 2 in canberra. luckt they didnt take Flannerys advice and close thredbo Uneducated people confuse climate with weather and don't use proper punctuation or capitalisation. Are you one of these people?  :-?

why i am happy to cite your very own ABC ::) ::)


The Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to build up to 45 new coal fired power stations.

Japan plans 45 new high-energy, low-emissions HELE coal fired power plants. ( ABC News )
The power plants will utilise high energy, low emissions (HELE) technology that use high-quality black coal.

Japan is the largest overseas market for Australian coal producers, taking more than a third of all exports.

Tom O'Sullivan, a Tokyo based energy consultant with Mathyos Global Advisory, said in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan started importing more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Australia.

But he said the move to more coal fired power was because coal was cheaper than LNG, and the energy security was priority for the government.

"Japan needs to import 95 per cent of all its energy sources," he said.

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:13am:

uneducated people listen to people like flannery who have vested financial interests in the rubbish they spruke

And the coal guys are merely concerned citizens?

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:15am:

Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 9:39am: aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: the only graph that Joe Lunchbox cares about is the electricity price graph. time to build a coal plant . the japanese are building 48 of them they are smart people. they could come and build a couple for us . Citation needed. Time to show the "time to build a coal plant" sickos a calendar and explain to them that it's not the 20th century anymore and new, cheaper technology is available. aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: greenhouse gases :D :D :D the longest ski season ever in the snowy mountains this year. still minus 2 in canberra. luckt they didnt take Flannerys advice and close thredbo Uneducated people confuse climate with weather and don't use proper punctuation or capitalisation. Are you one of these people?  :-? why i am happy to cite your very own ABC ::) ::) The Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to build up to 45 new coal fired power stations. Japan plans 45 new high-energy, low-emissions HELE coal fired power plants. ( ABC News ) The power plants will utilise high energy, low emissions (HELE) technology that use high-quality black coal. Japan is the largest overseas market for Australian coal producers, taking more than a third of all exports. Tom O'Sullivan, a Tokyo based energy consultant with Mathyos Global Advisory, said in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan started importing more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Australia. But he said the move to more coal fired power was because coal was cheaper than LNG, and the energy security was priority for the government. "Japan needs to import 95 per cent of all its energy sources," he said.

So, we've gone from "the japanese are building 48 of them", to "plans to build up to 45".

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:19am:

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 10:15am: Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 9:39am: aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: the only graph that Joe Lunchbox cares about is the electricity price graph. time to build a coal plant . the japanese are building 48 of them they are smart people. they could come and build a couple for us . Citation needed. Time to show the "time to build a coal plant" sickos a calendar and explain to them that it's not the 20th century anymore and new, cheaper technology is available. aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: greenhouse gases :D :D :D the longest ski season ever in the snowy mountains this year. still minus 2 in canberra. luckt they didnt take Flannerys advice and close thredbo Uneducated people confuse climate with weather and don't use proper punctuation or capitalisation. Are you one of these people?  :-? why i am happy to cite your very own ABC ::) ::) The Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to build up to 45 new coal fired power stations. Japan plans 45 new high-energy, low-emissions HELE coal fired power plants. ( ABC News ) The power plants will utilise high energy, low emissions (HELE) technology that use high-quality black coal. Japan is the largest overseas market for Australian coal producers, taking more than a third of all exports. Tom O'Sullivan, a Tokyo based energy consultant with Mathyos Global Advisory, said in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan started importing more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Australia. But he said the move to more coal fired power was because coal was cheaper than LNG, and the energy security was priority for the government. "Japan needs to import 95 per cent of all its energy sources," he said. So, we've gone from "the japanese are building 48 of them", to "plans to build up to 45".

hopefully our fine and efficient japanese neighbours will build 3 for us (taking it to 48) so we dont suffer blackouts and so that you can have internet access in your mummys basement

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 10:19am: aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 10:15am: Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 9:39am: aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: the only graph that Joe Lunchbox cares about is the electricity price graph. time to build a coal plant . the japanese are building 48 of them they are smart people. they could come and build a couple for us . Citation needed. Time to show the "time to build a coal plant" sickos a calendar and explain to them that it's not the 20th century anymore and new, cheaper technology is available. aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: greenhouse gases :D :D :D the longest ski season ever in the snowy mountains this year. still minus 2 in canberra. luckt they didnt take Flannerys advice and close thredbo Uneducated people confuse climate with weather and don't use proper punctuation or capitalisation. Are you one of these people?  :-? why i am happy to cite your very own ABC ::) ::) The Japanese government is moving ahead with its plans to build up to 45 new coal fired power stations. Japan plans 45 new high-energy, low-emissions HELE coal fired power plants. ( ABC News ) The power plants will utilise high energy, low emissions (HELE) technology that use high-quality black coal. Japan is the largest overseas market for Australian coal producers, taking more than a third of all exports. Tom O'Sullivan, a Tokyo based energy consultant with Mathyos Global Advisory, said in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011, Japan started importing more liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Australia. But he said the move to more coal fired power was because coal was cheaper than LNG, and the energy security was priority for the government. "Japan needs to import 95 per cent of all its energy sources," he said. So, we've gone from "the japanese are building 48 of them", to "plans to build up to 45". hopefully our fine and efficient japanese neighbours will build 3 for us (taking it to 48) so we dont suffer blackouts and so that you can have internet access in your mummys basement

Was a good story about battery bank in SA and what a resounding success it's been on telly last night. Did you see it  :)?

which channel.


please tell me it wasnt on the ABC or SBS, the propaganda networks for the looney left  :D

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/tesla-battery-proves-a-leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420?pfmredir=sm

Mmm delicious  :)

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:45am:

which channel. please tell me it wasnt on the ABC or SBS, the propaganda networks for the looney left  :D

You were probably busy watching some intellectual ACA or TT so I've provided a delicious link for you to eat your juicy apples,  Mmm delicious

lee wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:09pm:

They're going up in China too. But no one cares about that. And Germany too. And Australia is still a carbon sink.

And who is flogging dirty coal to them to set fire to ?

CO2 doesn't distinguish between continents. What we stick in the atmosphere in one country effects the rest of the world :(

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 7:47pm:

I see you're posting your usual rubbish with no citations that demonstrates your ossification of thought.

Citation needed.

Please show where actual subsidies for fossil fuel are more than renewables. ;)

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:59pm:

That's why it's called a "runaway greenhouse." Once the water vapour starts making a critical contribution, it is game over because it accelerates in a positive feedback. It won't stop until the oceans boil away and are lost to space. When does that happen? Nobody knows for sure but it could be closer than we think.

Citation needed. please show the empirical studies that show this will occur. raher than your usual blather. ;)


Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:59pm:

Do you want to see the future of this planet? Look at Venus.

Oh dear. Do you have a citation for that.

let's see - 96.5% CO2 - Earth 0.004%

Atmospheric pressure - 93 bar or 9.3MPa (1 bar is the air pressure on Earth at sea level)

No magnetic field.

Yes. I think I see the similarities. /sarc

Its time wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:51am:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/tesla-battery-proves-a-leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420?pfmredir=sm Mmm delicious  :)

yes very very dewicious !

stupid dumb as dogshite LNP wouldn't know how to change a set of torch batteries let alone get their mind around the significances of the Tesla battery. The LNP should always be kept away from making decisions involving technology. They are the party of the braindead.

lee wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 11:03am:

Bam wrote on Oct 1st, 2018 at 11:59pm: That's why it's called a "runaway greenhouse." Once the water vapour starts making a critical contribution, it is game over because it accelerates in a positive feedback. It won't stop until the oceans boil away and are lost to space. When does that happen? Nobody knows for sure but it could be closer than we think. Citation needed. please show the empirical studies that show this will occur. raher than your usual blather. ;)

Even if he could you'd just get out your climate skeptics 101 excuse book to refute it as usual.

Its time wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:53am:

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 10:45am: which channel. please tell me it wasnt on the ABC or SBS, the propaganda networks for the looney left  :D You were probably busy watching some intellectual ACA or TT so I've provided a delicious link for you to eat your juicy apples,  Mmm delicious

i dont watch either

i have this on a loop


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgtdpi5ecHU

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:58am:

And who is flogging dirty coal to them to set fire to ?

China imports from multiple sources as well as internal sources. Germany wants to raze a forest to mine more lignite; the dirtiest type of coal.


Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:58am:

CO2 doesn't distinguish between continents. What we stick in the atmosphere in one country effects the rest of the world

Yes. So why should China be allowed to emit more CO2 until 2030, if it is a problem?

And Australia is still a "carbon", meaning CO2. sink. That is we are not a NET source of CO2.

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 11:06am:

Even if he could you'd just get out your climate skeptics 101 excuse book to refute it as usual.

So you are saying he can't? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And Venus is only 26M miles closer to the Sun. ;)

lee wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 11:17am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 10:58am: And who is flogging dirty coal to them to set fire to ? China imports from multiple sources as well as internal sources. Germany wants to raze a forest to mine more lignite; the dirtiest type of coal. Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 10:58am: CO2 doesn't distinguish between continents. What we stick in the atmosphere in one country effects the rest of the world Yes. So why should China be allowed to emit more CO2 until 2030, if it is a problem? And Australia is still a "carbon", meaning CO2. sink. That is we are not a NET source of CO2.

Aren't we rated as the biggest polluters per head of population and now you want to tell us that we are a carbon sink :D LOL

lee wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 11:22am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 11:06am: Even if he could you'd just get out your climate skeptics 101 excuse book to refute it as usual. So you are saying he can't? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D And Venus is only 26M miles closer to the Sun. ;)

what does it say in your 101 climate skeptics manual ? :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 12:09pm:

Aren't we rated as the biggest polluters per head of population and now you want to tell us that we are a carbon sink

yes petal. The Kyoto protocol didn't recognise existing forests and grasslands. That's how they came to decide it.

"  Importantly,  emissions associated  with  land  use,  land  use  change  and  forestry  (LULUCF)  are  not  included  under Annex A greenhouse gas accounting."

https://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sci/kyotoaccrules.pdf

Of course some might think that is an Australian view only.

You can read how Canada viewed it -

https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hre/pubs/docs/thekyotoforest.pdf

See under Kyoto forest rules.

https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/top-20-carbon-sequestering-nations.jpg

Wow. Australia was third top.

Or you can go to https://data2.gosat.nies.go.jp/index_en.html and download any data your heart desires.

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 12:10pm:

what does it say in your 101 climate skeptics manual ?

Oh dear lastnail shows he is incapable of logical thought. Again.

aquascoot wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 10:13am:

Bam wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 9:39am: aquascoot wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 6:15am: greenhouse gases :D :D :D the longest ski season ever in the snowy mountains this year. still minus 2 in canberra. luckt they didnt take Flannerys advice and close thredbo Uneducated people confuse climate with weather and don't use proper punctuation or capitalisation. Are you one of these people?  :-? uneducated people listen to people like flannery who have vested financial interests in the rubbish they spruke

You haven't answered my question. Why not?

Do you know the difference between climate and weather?

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 11:06am:

lee wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 11:03am: Bam wrote on Oct 1st, 2018 at 11:59pm: That's why it's called a "runaway greenhouse." Once the water vapour starts making a critical contribution, it is game over because it accelerates in a positive feedback. It won't stop until the oceans boil away and are lost to space. When does that happen? Nobody knows for sure but it could be closer than we think. Citation needed. please show the empirical studies that show this will occur. raher than your usual blather. ;) Even if he could you'd just get out your climate skeptics 101 excuse book to refute it as usual.

Yeah, it's a waste of time providing links to this "lee" person because he doesn't read them, ignores the obvious and continues his frothy-mouthed denialist lunacy. He's too far gone with his terminal conservative ossification to be convinced of even basic science. It's why I don't bother anymore when he whines about links, he's too trolly. Why should I cast pearls before swine?

lee wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 11:22am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 2nd, 2018 at 11:06am: Even if he could you'd just get out your climate skeptics 101 excuse book to refute it as usual. So you are saying he can't? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D And Venus is only 26M miles closer to the Sun. ;)

Planetary science and stellar evolution are just a couple of many science topics where your ignorance is far too great to be corrected on a forum. Others could explain, but you'll be whining ceaselessly to your betters demanding citations for matters that can be found in textbooks.

You clearly spent far too much time in your school years disrupting classes. Maybe you should go back there. It seems a better use of your time.

Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 5:22pm:

Yeah, it's a waste of time providing links to this "lee" person because he doesn't read them, ignores the obvious and continues his frothy-mouthed denialist lunacy.

But mainly because you don't have any links. ;)


Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 5:22pm:

Why should I cast pearls before swine?

because you also don't have any pearls. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 5:33pm:

Others could explain, but you'll be whining ceaselessly to your betters demanding citations for matters that can be found in textbooks.

But not you; because you don't know anything. ;)


Bam wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 5:33pm:

You clearly spent far too much time in your school years disrupting classes. Maybe you should go back there. It seems a better use of your time.

Ooh. Ad hims. Those things you go to when you don't have anything germane to add to the proposition. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Perhaps you think it makes you sound semi-intelligent.

An article that shows how the government sat on these woeful figures for some time and then released them quietly late on Grand Final eve after deadline:

Taking out the trash: government hides shocking emissions figures

Quote:

The Department of Environment and Energy quietly released a concerning report while everyone was preoccupied with AFL and NRL. This marks Australia’s 15th quarter of consecutive increased annual emissions. The release of six-month-old, record-breaking greenhouse gas figures late last Friday was met with cynicism, outrage, and a solid shot at spin over the weekend. More importantly, it caps off four consecutive years of emission increases and exposes any pretense that Australia will meet its climate obligations. In the lead-up to the weekend’s AFL and NRL grand finals, and coinciding with the banking royal commission’s interim report, the Department of Environment and Energy released a quarterly emissions report demonstrating a 1.3% annual increase to March 2018. For critics, the timing is suspicious. Just last week, the Climate Council were calling out the government’s six-month delay and, pointing to other releases timed around Christmas Eve, acting CEO Dr Martin Rice painted Friday’s report as a “cynical attempt to avoid scrutiny”. But timing aside, the fact is Australia increased its total output by 6.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e) from March 2017 to 2018. It’s Australia’s 15th quarter of consecutive increased annual emissions and, excluding unreliable land use data, proof of Australia’s highest recorded level of carbon output at 536.7 Mt CO2-e. At a time when places like the UK are down to 1890s levels, this result raises questions about how long Australia can go without a carbon price. Though this was implemented for just two years (2012-14), we know it helped decrease total emissions (1.4% in that final, second full year). Our latest annual jump can mostly be attributed to Australia’s expansion in gas exports and production, which pushed our fourth largest sector (fugitive emissions) up by 13.7%. Australia also saw by a 2.1% increase in our second largest polluter (transport) and a 4.1% jump in our third (stationary energy excluding electricity, i.e. heating). This was all offset by a 4.3% decline in Australia’s largest polluter, electricity emissions, and thanks largely to reduced demand, Hazelwood’s 2017 closure, and the growth of renewable energy. For more on that point, Prime Minister Scott Morrison told Insiders on Sunday that Australia has “hit the threshold point, where the investments make sense, increasingly, without subsidies”. “We still have large-scale and the small-scale RET [Renewable Energy Target] policies in place, we still have the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, and we still have the Emissions Reduction Fund for the period that it’s currently for.” Morrison, it needs to be said, does a strong job emphasising the 28-year-per-capita low, and is correct in putting much of this electricity progress down to the 2020 Renewable Energy Target, CEFC and sheer economics. But it’s more difficult to claim credit for it. Add in state and territory action (including South Australia’s new Liberal government), and we have four success stories the federal government either had nothing to do with, tried to kill, actively undermined, or just announced they will let die in 2020. There’s also Morrison’s assurance that, with a climate policy vacuum and plan to end the RET, Australia will meet its 2030 Paris target of a 26% reduction on 2005 levels at “a canter”, and admission that “none of us are Nostradamus in this”. Crikey has sought clarification on the former point, but has not received comment before deadline. Both of these statements fly in the face of work done by the Australia Institute, NDEVR Environmental, ClimateWorks Australia, the United Nations, and the Australian government, with the Department of Environment and Energy projecting last year that, under current policies, our 2021-2030 emissions reduction task will be missed by 868-934 MtCO₂e.

https://www.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Australias-emissions-projections-2017.png
Australia’s emissions projections 2017 (Source: Department of Environment and Energy)


Quote:

The Climate Council’s Martin Rice tells Crikey that even Australia’s 26% commitment is “woefully inadequate and is not aligned with what science says is necessary to effectively tackle climate change”. Scott Morrison has addressed these concerns over targets in relation to Labor — and will likely do so more frequently as election season approaches. “Labor has a 45% emissions reduction target, we all know what that will do,” he said. “It will put up electricity prices by $1400 for every household in the country.” Does that stack up? A recent Frontier Economics report found Australian households will experience savings leading to 2030 where policy remains business as usual or moves to 26%, 45%, and 65% targets, with “45%” exceeding “business as usual” prices by roughly 0.02%.

So emissions are below 2006? Scary. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And still Australia is a net carbon sink. ;)

lee wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 7:05pm:

So emissions are below 2006? Scary. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D And still Australia is a net carbon sink. ;)

I see you're indulging your tendency to frothy-mouthed lunacy again.  :D

Bam wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 7:16pm:

I see you're indulging your tendency to frothy-mouthed lunacy again.

i see you can't read a graph.

that article is truly shocking Bam.
i cant believe we actually pay shiney bum numpties to sit on a climate council. :D :D

Climate data release again delayed by Government, FOI documents show

Quote:

Key points: * Australia failing to rein in greenhouse gas pollution in line with Paris agreement * Government sat on most recent emissions report for two months * Advocates accuse Government of 'hiding climate data from Australians' A report showing Australia is failing to rein in its greenhouse gas pollution was sat on for nearly two months by the Federal Government, before being released late on a Friday afternoon of a long weekend when footy finals fever and banking royal commission findings were dominating headlines, the ABC has learned. The delay is revealed in documents obtained under freedom of information laws by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF). The Government has released this quarterly report under similar circumstances in the past, leading to calls for it to be controlled by an agency and not politicians. "There is a clear trend here that the Government is hiding climate data from Australians," ACF chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy said. A spokesperson for Environment Minister Melissa Price told the ABC, "Ministers routinely and appropriately consider briefs for a period of time". The latest report — the Department of Environment's quarterly Update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory — showed, after adjustment for seasonal variation, in the three months of this year Australia had the highest levels of carbon pollution since 2011. It also revealed a continuation of the trend of upward annual emissions since 2013. And excluding controversial data about emissions from tree clearing and regrowth, Australia's emissions reached an all-time high in the 12 months to March this year. Data sat on for seven weeks The documents show on August 9 — seven weeks before the data's release — it was sent to the offices of both the current Environment Minister Melissa Price, in her role as assistant minister, and the then-environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, along with a ministerial briefing. Assistant secretary of the Department of Environment Rob Sturgess said to representatives of the two offices: "Gday. Not sure how busy you are this week … but attached is the quarterly update." Later that month, there was a cabinet reshuffle after Scott Morrison took over as Prime Minister. And on September 6, the Department of Environment sent it again to the office of the new minister, Ms Price. Three weeks later, on a Friday afternoon, the report was publicly released. That day was a public holiday in Victoria and preceded a long weekend in several other states marked by celebrations for the NRL and the AFL grand finals. It was also released immediately after the banking royal commission handed down its interim report. A spokesman for Ms Price said: "The Department of Environment and Energy provided the Minister for Environment with advice on the Quarterly Update of the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory on September 3, 2018." In a press-release published a few days before the report was released, the Climate Council anticipated it happening at a time that would minimise attention on it. "This has become a worryingly familiar scenario," Climate Council acting chief Dr Martin Rice said. "The Federal Government not only delays releasing climate information, it also tries to bury it. We've seen emissions data quietly released on Christmas Eve, or on a Friday evening, at a time it's least likely to attract attention or scrutiny." Ms O'Shanassy said it was time to take the release of the data out of politicians' hands. "We think climate data should be treated like jobs figures and GDP figures that are released by a government agency, not politicians, so they can't hide it.," she said. "You can imagine the uproar if they hid jobs or economic figures. But hiding climate figures is reckless because climate change is here now and affecting every Australian."

(continued)

Quote:

'People choose and pick their figures': PM After the report was uploaded to a government website, the office of Ms Price sent out a media release with the subject line: "Australia on track to meet emissions targets" and headlined "emissions intensity at lowest levels for 28 years". The release did not mention emissions had gone up, but instead focused on comparing the current figures to those from 2005 and 2000 — years when emissions were higher than they are now. It also focused on emissions per head of population, which have declined. Two days later, Prime Minister Scott Morrison was asked about the emissions data on the ABC's Insiders. "I know people will want to use that one figure and ignore the fact that emissions per capita are at the lowest level in 28 years," he said. "So people choose and pick their figures to make their political arguments. We're going to meet those in a canter, our 26 per cent target." But the documents released under FOI laws show the "key points" highlighted by the experts at the Department of Environment and delivered to the Minister also focused almost exclusively on the rising emissions. Ms O'Shanassy said the total figure was the only one that mattered. "The climate doesn't care if you're pumping out less pollution per population or relative to GDP," she said. Is Australian on track to meet Paris deal? On Insiders, Mr Morrison repeated his earlier claim Australia was on track to meet its commitment made at the Paris summit to reduce emissions to 26 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, "in a canter". "All of the issues are pointing to that outcome so I'm comfortable with our 26 per cent," he said. He was reiterating comments earlier in the month made on the ABC's 7.30 program. "What we're seeing though is a business-as-usual approach, a technology-driven approach, which will see us, I think, more than meet our targets out to 2030," Mr Morrison said. That view is at odds with the Government's official projections, last updated in December 2017, which show under business as usual, emissions will increase steadily all the way to 2030. "Emissions are rising and there's no national plan to turn it around," Ms O'Shanassy said. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if we don't have a plan, we're not going to meet our emission target. "They're kicking the can down the road for the next government but in doing so they're putting lives at risk because climate change is dangerous." Ms Price's spokesman said: "The 2017 review of climate change policy said Australia has the right mix of polices and improvements in technology. "The Government's policies are scalable and will enable Australia to meet the 2030 target."

yeh but you don't understand, we are still a carbon sink according to lees 101 skeptics excuse manual :D LOL

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:46am:

yeh but you don't understand, we are still a carbon sink according to lees 101 skeptics excuse manual

So you disbelieve the satellite data? Are you a Luddite?

But since you disbelieve that how about this?

"Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]. "

" Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare.  Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees. "

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

Australia's Mountain Ash can store up to 10 times more.

"In the past 12 months the annual level of emissions reached a record level of 559m tonnes CO2-e if we exclude the controversial component of “land use, land use change and forestry” (LULUCF), which includes a measure for the amount of forest and grasslands and the amounts of those cut down or converted to other uses."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/oct/01/australias-emissions-data-would-shame-the-coalition-if-such-a-thing-were-possible

Although he doesn't seem to understand the word "record". Even his graph shows 2006 being higher.

So if we were to take a conservative 1 t/hectare and there are 589 million hectares of forest and grassland (149 +  440); then we have covered our emissions.

About all the Greeny type hexspurts do is create CO₂ as they gasp and burp their inarticulate uninformed downright wrong rubbish about essential to life on earth CO₂.

CO₂ is greening the deserts and making food crops around the world grow like crazy.

Do the murky blood thirsty Greenies want these people to starve ?

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 11:59pm:

lee wrote on Oct 1st, 2018 at 7:48pm: BTW - New paper "Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation linear due to H2O greenhouse effect" "The team found this linear relationship breaks down when Earth’s global average surface temperatures go much beyond 300 K, or 80 F. In such a scenario, it would be much more difficult for the Earth to shed heat at roughly the same rate as its surface warms. For now, that number is hovering around 285 K, or 53 F. " http://news.mit.edu/2018/how-earth-sheds-heat-space-0924 Only 26F before it breaks down. Apparently . And H2O controls temp? oh dear. That's why it's called a "runaway greenhouse." Once the water vapour starts making a critical contribution, it is game over because it accelerates in a positive feedback. It won't stop until the oceans boil away and are lost to space. When does that happen? Nobody knows for sure but it could be closer than we think. Do you want to see the future of this planet? Look at Venus. Earth will be like that one day. If human activity wasn't contributing, Earth will become uninhabitable between one and two billion years from now due to increased solar activity. That cannot be stopped. However, it can be accelerated, and that's what is happening right now. That's why we need to turn down the thermostat. The worst part is not what we know. It's what we don't know. What happens when we warm up the permafrost where a lot of methane is trapped? What happens if the methane clathrates in the oceans start escaping? How much warming before it becomes irreversible?

The thing I don't like about both sides on the MMGW debate is when they make outlandish claims about how bad the earth's climate will become. Whether you're on the anti MMGW side claiming the earth will enter a new ice age and become a giant popsicle due to the expectations of a prolonged solar minimum after Solar Cycle 25, or whether you're on the pro MMGW side claiming average global temperatures will be similar to Venus, you are not doing your side justice by making claims that have no basis based on the current data available. All you do is turn people away from your hypothesis and any chance to enact policies to mitigate the probable effects of the change in climate will diminish.

Based on current data, if we burnt all of the fossil fuels on earth, which based on current rates of consumption will take a few hundred years at the earliest, it is estimated that average global temperatures will rise by about 10 degrees C, which will raise ocean levels by about 50 metres. Given that within the next 30 - 40 year we will have developed energy technologies that will dramatically reduce, even eliminate, our reliance on carbon based fuels, I doubt that such a scenario will be achieved.

However, I am unsure whether or not this factors in the effects of melted Arctic Permafrost. There is still a degree of debate as to what effect this melted permafrost will have. Again, if energy technologies develop that will reduce or eliminate our reliance on carbon based fuels this will stop further increases of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will reduce the possibility of the Arctic Permafrost melting.

minarchist wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 4:03pm:

However, I am unsure whether or not this factors in the effects of melted Arctic Permafrost.

The Arctic Permafrost didn't cause a problem in the MWP when it was apparently warmer than today.

lee wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 12:19pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Oct 4th, 2018 at 9:46am: yeh but you don't understand, we are still a carbon sink according to lees 101 skeptics excuse manual So you disbelieve the satellite data? Are you a Luddite? But since you disbelieve that how about this? "Australia has 149 million hectares of forest.  Of this, 147 million hectares is native forest, dominated by eucalypt (79%) and acacia (7%), and 1.82 million hectares is in plantations[i]. Grassland covers around 440 million hectares of land in Australia[ii]. " " Science tells us that the range for forests with continuous canopies is about 0.5-2 tonnes of carbon per year for each hectare.  Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake[i], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees. " https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2009/12/which-plants-store-more-carbon-in-australia-forests-or-grasses/ Australia's Mountain Ash can store up to 10 times more. "In the past 12 months the annual level of emissions reached a record level of 559m tonnes CO2-e if we exclude the controversial component of “land use, land use change and forestry” (LULUCF), which includes a measure for the amount of forest and grasslands and the amounts of those cut down or converted to other uses." https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/oct/01/australias-emissions-data-would-shame-the-coalition-if-such-a-thing-were-possible Although he doesn't seem to understand the word "record". Even his graph shows 2006 being higher. So if we were to take a conservative 1 t/hectare and there are 589 million hectares of forest and grassland (149 +  440); then we have covered our emissions.

You're cherrypicking again, I see.

Ignoring land clearing, ignoring bushfires, ignoring fugitive emissions, ignoring everything else, but cherrypicking something you like and beating it for all it's worth. If you think the scientists who know more on this topic than you are wrong, why don't you write to them a letter explaining this and then post it here?

minarchist wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 4:03pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 1st, 2018 at 11:59pm: lee wrote on Oct 1st, 2018 at 7:48pm: BTW - New paper "Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation linear due to H2O greenhouse effect" "The team found this linear relationship breaks down when Earth’s global average surface temperatures go much beyond 300 K, or 80 F. In such a scenario, it would be much more difficult for the Earth to shed heat at roughly the same rate as its surface warms. For now, that number is hovering around 285 K, or 53 F. " http://news.mit.edu/2018/how-earth-sheds-heat-space-0924 Only 26F before it breaks down. Apparently . And H2O controls temp? oh dear. That's why it's called a "runaway greenhouse." Once the water vapour starts making a critical contribution, it is game over because it accelerates in a positive feedback. It won't stop until the oceans boil away and are lost to space. When does that happen? Nobody knows for sure but it could be closer than we think. Do you want to see the future of this planet? Look at Venus. Earth will be like that one day. If human activity wasn't contributing, Earth will become uninhabitable between one and two billion years from now due to increased solar activity. That cannot be stopped. However, it can be accelerated, and that's what is happening right now. That's why we need to turn down the thermostat. The worst part is not what we know. It's what we don't know. What happens when we warm up the permafrost where a lot of methane is trapped? What happens if the methane clathrates in the oceans start escaping? How much warming before it becomes irreversible? The thing I don't like about both sides on the MMGW debate is when they make outlandish claims about how bad the earth's climate will become. Whether you're on the anti MMGW side claiming the earth will enter a new ice age and become a giant popsicle due to the expectations of a prolonged solar minimum after Solar Cycle 25, or whether you're on the pro MMGW side claiming average global temperatures will be similar to Venus, you are not doing your side justice by making claims that have no basis based on the current data available. All you do is turn people away from your hypothesis and any chance to enact policies to mitigate the probable effects of the change in climate will diminish. Based on current data, if we burnt all of the fossil fuels on earth, which based on current rates of consumption will take a few hundred years at the earliest, it is estimated that average global temperatures will rise by about 10 degrees C, which will raise ocean levels by about 50 metres. Given that within the next 30 - 40 year we will have developed energy technologies that will dramatically reduce, even eliminate, our reliance on carbon based fuels, I doubt that such a scenario will be achieved. However, I am unsure whether or not this factors in the effects of melted Arctic Permafrost. There is still a degree of debate as to what effect this melted permafrost will have. Again, if energy technologies develop that will reduce or eliminate our reliance on carbon based fuels this will stop further increases of CO2 in the atmosphere, which will reduce the possibility of the Arctic Permafrost melting.

The big problem here: we just don't know.

Bam wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 6:39pm:

Ignoring land clearing, ignoring bushfires, ignoring fugitive emissions, ignoring everything else, but cherrypicking something you like and beating it for all it's worth.

if you actually looked at the graph the 559Mt CO2e is actually the maximum amount. By including them the emissions are lower.

But that would be much too hard for you.

Do try harder.

Of course it only helps if you can read a graph.

First Dog on the Moon: Ian the Climate Denialist Potato holds a press conference

lee wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 8:04pm:

Bam wrote on Oct 4th, 2018 at 6:39pm: Ignoring land clearing, ignoring bushfires, ignoring fugitive emissions, ignoring everything else, but cherrypicking something you like and beating it for all it's worth. if you actually looked at the graph the 559Mt CO2e is actually the maximum amount. By including them the emissions are lower. But that would be much too hard for you. Do try harder. Of course it only helps if you can read a graph.

You're making sht up again ...

Bam wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 10:22am:

lee wrote on Oct 4th, 2018 at 8:04pm: Bam wrote on Oct 4th, 2018 at 6:39pm: Ignoring land clearing, ignoring bushfires, ignoring fugitive emissions, ignoring everything else, but cherrypicking something you like and beating it for all it's worth. if you actually looked at the graph the 559Mt CO2e is actually the maximum amount. By including them the emissions are lower. But that would be much too hard for you. Do try harder. Of course it only helps if you can read a graph. You're making sht up again ...

Oh? You mean you can read a graph? If you have any doubts, seeing as Greg Jericho, the writer at the Guardian who did that graph, can probably help you.

"Chart: Greg Jericho Source: Depot of Environment, Table 1A, derived Get the data Created with Datawrapper "

If however you mean something else you need to be more specific. Because the graph exists.

From the OP....


Quote:

The Morrison government stands accused of trying to sneak-release the latest greenhouse gas emission figures – they’ve gone up, again – by making them public on the eve of the footy grand finals. The figures are the latest evidence that Australia will fail to meet its Paris Agreement targets, despite the government’s claims to the contrary.

The fact is this Government is lying to the Australian people over climate change policy which sees the Coalition fall way short of the mark with no policies to address the situation of rising emissions....Despite their complete capitulation to the climate change deniers they continue to claim all is good and fiddle whilst Rome is burning....We need leadership and environment policies that protect the environment not fossil fuels and the Mineral lobby....This complete rabble must go!!!

>:( >:( >:(

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 8:14pm:

.Despite their complete capitulation to the climate change deniers they continue to claim all is good and fiddle whilst Rome is burning..

I haven't seen anybody who denies climate changes.

I see you haven't come up with any empirical evidence.

lee wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:

I haven't seen anybody who denies climate changes.

Typical deflection....The Government signed up to Paris targets and are responsible for Australia's emissions under that agreement....The Coalition claims we will meet those targets whilst doing nothing which is a lie....The Government released the report on the eave of the AFL Grand final to bury the embarrassing data....There is no certainty and no leadership....Address the issue and stop deflecting with denialist bullshit....The Government is lying to the Australian people and you have never addressed the issue or it's implications....You are a flake mate!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Typical deflection....

You were the one raised the topic of climate change denial. So how can it be deflection?


philperth2010 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

The Coalition claims we will meet those targets whilst doing nothing which is a lie...

Do you have any evidence for that, that we will not "meet these targets".


philperth2010 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Address the issue and stop deflecting with denialist bullshit..

See there you go again. Raising the spectre of people who deny the climate changes. Just can't help yourself.

It's the only arrow in your quiver and you have a broken bow.


philperth2010 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

The Government is lying to the Australian people and you have never addressed the issue or it's implications..

So tell us the implications that you think are not being addressed.

Drought? Nah. Been evidenced many times before.

You must have something other than a "the sky is falling" mentality.

But perhaps you can tell us why we should trust NASA. They couldn't even get their 97% reference right.


Perhaps you have heard of the phrase "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus "?


philperth2010 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

You are a flake mate!!

Ah the old ad hom when you don't have a logical argument. It is always the other person's fault.

The Government is responsible for policies and reducing emissions....They are failing and need to be held to account on their commitments to the Australian people at the next election....This rabble must go!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:32pm:

The Government is responsible for policies and reducing emissions....They are failing and need to be held to account on their commitments to the Australian people at the next election....This rabble must go!!! ::) ::) ::)

And go they will, leaving a mess for Labor to clean up. Again.