Login Now to remove this and all advertisements (GOLD and SILVER members)
Not a member? Register Now for free

What Carbon

Status
Not open for further replies.

Limewood

Established Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
4,476
Points
705
Was wondering how much carbon pollution has been saved by our (carbon) tax and have other polluting nations like China, India and USA done anything much to reduce as well?.
 

opusman

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
5,870
Solutions
1
Points
980
Coincidentally this article was in the Guardian today.

After two years of operation, total carbon pollution from electricity consumption in the national energy market is "down by 5.3 million tonnes in the twelve months to May 2014", according to The Climate Institute.
The latest Australian Greenhouse Gas Inventory shows that national emissions continue to drop. Emissions from all sectors excluding land use and forestry fell 0.8 per cent, or 4.3 million tonnes in the year to December 2013.

Point 5 in that piece addresses the second part of your question.
 

RooFlyer

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
17,492
Solutions
2
Points
2,800
Qantas
Platinum
Carbon of course is a chemical element and not much danger to anyone. Some carbon, known as diamonds, I'd be happy to be polluted with.

Carbon dioxide on the other hand is a naturally occurring gas essential for plant life.

Perhaps the more pertinent question is how much has the world's temperature dropped by after us paying the carbon dioxide tax?

Another question is what caused the onset of the last ice age, and what caused the warming to end it (50,000 - 20,000 years ago)? Not to mention all the other warming and cooling periods evidenced in the geological record. Human carbon dioxide emissions?
 

777

Established Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2009
Messages
2,914
Points
0
Yes that is what I'd like to know too.

I completely agree. It's the same reason I abuse drivers stopped at traffic lights or slowing at give way signs for not reversing. If the signs were doing their job everyone would be driving backwards. It's just common sense.
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
20,288
Points
0
Carbon of course is a chemical element and not much danger to anyone. Some carbon, known as diamonds, I'd be happy to be polluted with.

Carbon dioxide on the other hand is a naturally occurring gas essential for plant life.

Perhaps the more pertinent question is how much has the world's temperature dropped by after us paying the carbon dioxide tax?

Another question is what caused the onset of the last ice age, and what caused the warming to end it (50,000 - 20,000 years ago)? Not to mention all the other warming and cooling periods evidenced in the geological record. Human carbon dioxide emissions?

The more important question is why denialists confuse natural cycles as somehow the same as human induced emissions. Basically what you're saying is the earth warmed slowly in the past due to natural cycles over a long period of time, so there's no problem with accelerating that cycle by speeding up the emissions and causing the heating to happen in 100 years instead of 100000 years. All so you can keep polluting the planet.

Probably the more relevant question is who actually paid any more because of the carbon tax? At this stage no one is going to pay any less when it is removed, which highlights to outright lies of those living in a science free bubble.
 

whatmeworry

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,867
Points
0
A couple oldies but goodies...

[video=youtube_share;ckcH0Wrmy74]http://youtu.be/ckcH0Wrmy74[/video]
 

whatmeworry

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,867
Points
0
And another

[video=youtube_share;3X--IsD3dCs]http://youtu.be/3X--IsD3dCs[/video]
 

eastwest101

Established Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
3,145
Points
705
....so there's no problem with accelerating that cycle by speeding up the emissions and causing the heating to happen in 100 years instead of 100000 years. All so you can keep polluting the planet.

Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.jpg

Actually over 100,000 years the biggest temp changes we can see are in the order of 8 to 10 degrees, if the man made emissions in the last 100 years were "speeding things up" to the extent of the variations over 100,00 years were compressed into 100 years then the average temperature from 1914 to 2014 would have gone up by 10 degrees celsius. I don't think that has happened.
 

opusman

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
5,870
Solutions
1
Points
980
Actually over 100,000 years the biggest temp changes we can see are in the order of 8 to 10 degrees, if the man made emissions in the last 100 years were "speeding things up" to the extent of the variations over 100,00 years were compressed into 100 years then the average temperature from 1914 to 2014 would have gone up by 10 degrees celsius. I don't think that has happened.

Average global temperature has risen 0.85 degrees over the past 100 years or so*, so by your own argument this is ~100 times faster than would have been expected naturally. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make?


* and note, something that escapes most denialist's logic, is that the rate temperatures are rising is increasing.

 

drron

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
25,389
Solutions
1
Points
3,350
* and note, something that escapes most denialist's logic, is that the rate temperatures are rising is increasing.


Even the IPCC disagrees with that point.The rate of warming has decreased-ie the planet is still warming but at a slower rate than previously despite increasing CO2 levels.
The absolute temperatures are now at the lowest limit of those predicted by computer modeling-by the way which isn't proven science.

More climate scientists are now distancing themselves from the more vocal Doomsday promoters such as Al Gore.See here-
Richard Tol: IPCC again
This fellow is not a "denier".
I have been involved with the IPCC since 1994, fulfilling a variety of roles in all three working groups. After the debacle of AR4 – where the Himalayan glacier melt really was the least of the errors – I had criticized the IPCC for faulty quality control. Noblesse oblige – I am the 20th most-cited climate scholar in the world – so I volunteered for AR5.

In the earlier drafts of the SPM, there was a key message that was new, snappy and relevant: Many of the more worrying impacts of climate change really are symptoms of mismanagement and underdevelopment.This message does not support the political agenda for greenhouse gas emission reduction.
The highlights are by the author not me.
 
Trying to access your favourite Australian websites when overseas only to discover they have been geo-blocked? Concerned about your internet privacy especially when using unsecured wifi? NordVPN will solve both these common problems.

Recommended by the Australian Frequent Flyer

drron

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
25,389
Solutions
1
Points
3,350
You obviously have not had time to read the link and the links he provides.
More Qualifications in the area of climate than tim flannery or Ross Garnaut.
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
20,288
Points
0
View attachment 31541

Actually over 100,000 years the biggest temp changes we can see are in the order of 8 to 10 degrees, if the man made emissions in the last 100 years were "speeding things up" to the extent of the variations over 100,00 years were compressed into 100 years then the average temperature from 1914 to 2014 would have gone up by 10 degrees celsius. I don't think that has happened.

1/100th of a degree is the natural maximum change in 100 years based on your numbers. An increase of 0.85 degrees is 85 times the natural rate or 8500 years worth of increase. So I was out by one order or magnitude. Still my point remain is 85 times more than natural ok then? I'm entirely unconvinced by an argument that says temperature changes naturally so therefore it's ok for it to change 85 times quicker.

In any case, I believe that humans have an absolute duty to use the resources if this planet in the most efficient way possible, regardless of whether climate change is a load of crap or not. If that means pricing one source of energy so that more renewable sources become cost competitive then so be it. We have clear evidence that such pricing does not destroy Australian industry.

Oh and that will be my last comment in this obviously political thread.
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
20,288
Points
0
Even the IPCC disagrees with that point.The rate of warming has decreased-ie the planet is still warming but at a slower rate than previously predicted despite increasing CO2 levels.
The absolute temperatures are now at the lowest limit of those predicted by computer modeling-by the way which isn't proven science.

More climate scientists are now distancing themselves from the more vocal Doomsday promoters such as Al Gore.See here-
Richard Tol: IPCC again
This fellow is not a "denier".



The highlights are by the author not me.

Oops this will have to be the last comment.

I see you're still leaving out important words. The rate is lower than previously predicted. Why leave that out and try to pretend that relates to actual measurements?
 

Alanslegal

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
5,403
Points
0
What carbon?? Sh** happens according to Tony, Oh he was referring to the death of an Australian soldier :(
 

RooFlyer

Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
17,492
Solutions
2
Points
2,800
Qantas
Platinum
This is going to be another ultimately pointless internet debate about climate change. No winners, no losers and very few converted either way :)

Medhead said in response to my post above:

The more important question is why denialists confuse natural cycles as somehow the same as human induced emissions. Basically what you're saying is the earth warmed slowly in the past due to natural cycles over a long period of time, so there's no problem with accelerating that cycle by speeding up the emissions and causing the heating to happen in 100 years instead of 100000 years. All so you can keep polluting the planet.

"Denialist" is of course a slur on climate change skeptics to conflate them with holocaust deniers. Lets argue by all means, but lets keep the argument civil, eh? I mean, I wouldn't want to call climate change alarmists liars and fools, would I? ;)

No, I'm not saying the climate warmed slowly in the past due to natural causes. The geological evidence (which can be measured down to the year level, even millions of years ago via varved sediments for instance, not to mention oxygen and other isotopes) shows things warmed and cooled quickly, slowly and all in between. There's about 3 billion years of history out there, since the continental crust cooled enough for the earth's dynamics to be about what they are today. Geologists look at all this - not just the ~500 years, or 0.00000002% (I may be a few zeros out there) of the time that 'climate scientists' look at. (OK, quadruple that to 2,000 years - its still not very long).

'Climate scientists' take very selective data from short periods of earth history and filter it. Not great science, I can tell you.

And why do they call it 'carbon pollution' when 1) its NOT carbon and 2) Carbon Dioxide is plant food. BTW the geological record also shows cycles of elevated CO2 / depleted O2 in the past.

And in spite of there being accelerating CO2 emissions, there has been no significant warming for the past 15 years and arguably longer. Oops! :oops: the same IPCC data set that started this whole thing off about 20 years ago. Remember 'hide the decline'? Can't hide the data.

The geological record shows that there has been cooling & warming, fast & slow in the past. The whole 'climate change' argument is pinned to a correlation between rising CO2 emissions and global temperature. That correlation has been comprehensively de-bunked, and the climate change mob's next argument is that the heat is hiding in the oceans (but we can't measure it) is bunkum.

We'll wait until the next round of government funding of the climate change gravy train to see where the heat is now!
 

drron

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
25,389
Solutions
1
Points
3,350
Oops this will have to be the last comment.

I see you're still leaving out important words. The rate is lower than previously predicted. Why leave that out and try to pretend that relates to actual measurements?

No the rate of increase has been less in the last 15 years than the 25 years before that.I really thought that was clear.I was answering the point that said the rate of increase has increased.it has not.

Despite that I agree that the climate change debate is irrelevant in the decisions of more efficient use of resources.That should be done anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Community Statistics

Threads
86,606
Messages
2,100,249
Members
53,915
Latest member
Lawter2020
Top