A down under slide show on the folly of the carbon tax

Well, the ACS hasn’t gotten the message that climate change isn’t happening either. Susan Soloman is featured prominently in the agenda for the August meeting in Denver.Climate Change at the Fall 2011 ACS National Meeting
Climate change – a complex phenomenon involving physical, chemical, and biological processes affecting the atmosphere, land and fresh water surfaces, and the oceans – is encompassed by the Denver thematic program of Chemistry of Air, Space, and Water. The Kavli Lecture (Monday) by Dr. Susan Solomon on the “Enduring Challenges of Ozone Depletion and Climate Change” will review the key scientific questions and critical research areas regarding the phenomena involved in ozone depletion. Allen Townsend will examine the role of nitrogen in climate dynamics during his Plenary Lecture, “Nitrogen and the Human Endeavor” (Sunday), which also serves as a keynote for the full-length symposium, Nitrogen and the Human Endeavor: Chemistry, Effects, and Solutions (Monday).
Related symposia covering climate change in Denver:
• Atmospheric Aerosols: Chemistry, Clouds, and Climate (Tuesday – Thursday, ENVR)
• Breakfast and Conversation with Climate Experts (Sunday, SCHB)
• A Critical Look at Global Warming Data: An Examination of Driving Factors in the Wickedly Complex System Called Climate (Sunday, SCHB)
• Global Climate Change (Sunday, ENVR)
• A Sustainable Future: Interface of Energy, Food, Water, and Climate Sustainability (Tuesday, COMSCI)
• Air-Surface Interactions: Chemistry from Molecular to Global Climate Scales (Sunday & Monday, ENVR)
• Interactions between Ionizable Organic Chemicals and Organic Matter (Wednesday, ENVR)
• Urban Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Mitigating Impacts (Thursday, ENVR)
Learn more about these and all sessions in the technical program

They are trying to pump carbon tax by saying that public support is up to 36% now. I guess the 64% against isn’t worth mentioning. 😉
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=2069952166

Gillard like the other wise Australian, Murdoch, knows that there is much mileage in pandering to stupidity. Associating carbon reduction with ‘organic’ food is truly inspired. I would also anticipate Page 3 endorsements, and perhaps collectible CO2 abatement tokens given away with McDonald’s happy meals, and breakfast cereals.

“Carbon Pollution????” Guess I have to stop using pencils. What’s next, “Oxygen Pollution”?

This slide show is an excellent and logical representation of the facts concerning this Planets Climate. No part truths, no half truths, nothing taken out of context and no outright lies.

“A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form.”
I demand a chemical analysis!

Carl Bussjaeger says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:07 pm
“A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form.”
I demand a chemical analysis!
——————————————————————
100% pure Welsh slate. Not born, quarried

If power is legitimately delegated by the people to governments, is this not the time for the people to reconsider the legal concept of sovereign immunity and hold politicians personally accountable for acts of national and economic suicide. If a politican were to have to legally defend their actions in court when they intentionally or neglegently destroy lives and industry based on faulty science they might take an entirly different approach to the issues at hand.

Wendy says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:11 pm
holy carp!! That many people really believe that Tsunamis and earthquakes are caused by “carbon pollution”?? Didn’t any of them have a science class in school? I’m appalled!!!
================================================================
Obviously, public education isn’t what it is suppose to be. Or, perhaps, it is doing exactly what it was intended………..

We are currently being bombarded with millions of dollars worth of Gillard greenhouse propaganda on radio and TV. Funny how people now see “greenhouse” as a dirty word yet farmers still use greehouses, together with CO2 enrichment, to improve plant growth.

Derek Sorensen says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Question re: slide 12.
I keep coming across numbers like this (that only 3% of CO2 production is down to humans) but surely that doesn’t add up. If we’ve gone from 280ppm to 390ppm in 130 years, and this is due to human activity, then surely we must be contributing more than 3%. Or is the 3% figure misleading/irrelevant?
================================================================
Derek, the 3% is probably accurate as best as can be determined. However, the argument is the 3% accumulates. That stated, just because we’ve gone from 280ppm to 390 ppm doesn’t mean we(humans) are the source. In spite of what people would have you believe, the 280 ppm is not a constant, not now, nor was it ever. During the earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 has dramatically changed both much higher, and somewhat lower. BTW, if atmospheric CO2 drops much lower than 280ppm our plants are in trouble, and thus, so are we. As to various contributions to the GH effect, and an explanation of our contribution, here’s a good page….. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Derek, the sources and sinks of CO2 are too many to know all of the ins and outs to determine if we’re contributing or if the rise is an out-gassing.
The fact is, humans are also carbon sinks. And, we create carbon sinks. So, if we’re going to hold humans responsible for the CO2 out there, we need to factor in all of the possible ways, we are sinks, also. 🙂 No one knows the net contribution of anything, much less of mankind.

Prior to PM Gillard being elected she was adamant there would be NO carbon tax, but no sooner was she in power she decides to have a change of heart and introduce this carbon tax.
What people should be asking is, what was it that made her have a complete about turn; did she see the ‘science’ and think WOW, we are in the sh*t!! As an intelligent woman, she must have questioned what she was told initially and i assume must have read and understood what was presented to her, so if it convinced her so strongly, then surely she should present the people with the same evidence she saw, which completely changed her attitude to the implimentation of the carbon tax, so in turn convince the public that she now governs.
If it provided her the need to do a very sudden and abrubt U turn, then i think the people need to see what it was that brought that decision into being.
It would be the right and proper thing to do in a open, decent and transparent democracy.
So ALL you Australians down there demand to see the evidence she saw which convinced her to take in this wonderful new carbon tax… Ask, ASK… ASK..!!!

To Fit Nick; the reason for Gillard’s change is simple – it’s called ‘The Greens’. They hold the balance of power in Australia, and Gillard has to dance to their tune if she is to stay in power as Prime Minister. They are determined that they know what is best for us, and will go all the way with eco-fascism to get what they want.

I find a lot of emotions in the presentation. For instance asking for more CO2 emissions is just an emotional attack, not really backed up by science. The same applies to the ‘Cruelia’ joke or the projected China emissions. Sorry, nobody knows the future, neither in climate nor in industry.
I find the whole debate about whether CO2 is or isn’t pollutant funny. Sure enough, if production of something is too high and it upsets you, you call it a pollutant whatever it is. We have ozone pollution in cities however useful that gas is in the ionosphere, for instance. Battle of the “pollutant” sticker is yet again emotional one, not scientific one.
The argument ‘they never explain how or why’ is also completely wrong. I’ve heard way too many such explanations or predictions to agree that they never explain. I wish they didn’t, it wouldn’t be so much work to debunk all that nonsense … but the argument is wrong.
“Is global warming reducing ice caps … NO!” Well, arctic ice cap clearly is declining. And you can’t save it by statement that Al Gore was wrong about it – it may not be gone but it still is declining and the variability after 2007 is clearly under statistical significance and does not suggest it’s recovering.
I think there are lots of good points in that presentations but some are IMO just wrong or can be classified as hits under belt.

If food labels listed ingredients based on the periodic table, it would probably look something like this:
O:
C:
H:
Water is the primary ingredient in many foods (rice and other grains are an exception, as are the foods that contain them as main components), followed by carbon. Hence, carbon would almost always be first or second on the list (in beverages it would probably be third in abundance).
So is this what Gillard’s refering to when calling it “carbon pollution”?
How absurd. My gosh, she must have been schooled without benefit of critical or logical thought.

What nobody has picked up on PM Gillard’s carbon (dioxide) tax, is the commitment to the UN Green Climate Fund of 10% of any carbon tax or emissions trading scheme. This agreement was signed by Minister Combet ( Climate Change) at Cancun 2010. It has to be ratified at COP17 Durban December 2011, hence the push to get a carbon tax in legislation as soon as possible.
A Youtube video h/t WakeUp2theLies:-

PM Gillard not answering the question on Green Climate Fund – Question Time.
The video includes at the end the pre-election statements by Ms Gillard and Treasurer Wayne Swan – “I will not have a carbon tax in my term of office” or similar words
The transcript of the “event” in the Parliament is also available in the Australian Federal Parliament Hansard 1/3/2011 , around 2:28pm.

“Derek Sorensen says:
July 26, 2011 at 2:32 pm
Question re: slide 12.
Or is the 3% figure misleading/irrelevant?”
This 3% represents the extra amount that humans put in each year at the present time. So it has accumulated to about 40% higher now than it was in 1750. About half of what we put in stays in the air and about half goes into photosynthesis and into the ocean.
“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 3:08 pm
No one knows the net contribution of anything, much less of mankind.”
I agree there is much that we do not know. However all of the fossil fuels that have been burned since 1750 has caused a lot of CO2 to be emitted and that just does not disappear. It has to show up somewhere. I have no problem accepting that the net effect of humans has been to cause CO2 to go up by 40% since 1750. The real question is whether or not this has caused CAGW. I am convinced the answer to that is NO!

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 26, 2011 at 4:26 pm
James and Derek, the next slide (about the carbon cycle) shows reality: some 7 GtC is emitted by humans but only 4 GtC is removed by oceans and vegetation, that is the difference between natural sources and natural sinks. Thus it is highly misleading to say that human production is only 3% of natural production, because there are only few human sinks (by reforestation), while the natural sinks are higher than the natural production, if counted over a full seasonal cycle. Thus the net natural production is negative (at least over the past 60 years of accurate measurements).
There is little doubt that humans are responsible for almost all of the recent increase of CO2. Temperature only had a small contribution.
Historical CO2 levels from ice cores are quite clear on this: over the past near million years (and probably beyond), the influence of temperature was about 8 ppmv/°C, with CO2 levels between 180 and 300 ppmv. Nowadays we are over 390 ppmv…
==================================================================
Ferdinand, I don’t mean to quibble, but, ……..
I don’t believe it can be shown there are any accurate measurements of sinks vs emitters. We don’t know how much the oceans are emitting and sinking. And we don’t know all of the sinks and emitters. It is impossible to state with any certitude how much is removed by oceans and vegetation in a net sum vs how much they are also emitting.(Dying and dead vegetation, ocean out-gassing.) Nor, have we summed the net effect of the fauna of this earth. Further, has anyone accurately shown the emissions of geo-thermal activity? I sincerely doubt it because we are discovering more on a seemingly daily basis underwater. The net natural production can’t possibly consistently negative, else, before mankind CO2 would have been zero. If it were zero, then no life. I think it is highly misleading to portray what we believe to have occurred as to be anything more than a guess. And, by my estimation, an unlikely event.
Further, tell me how you believe ice cores have any veracity in them at all? Trapped air? We don’t know old the molecular make-up of that particular piece of air was before it was frozen in time. Further, it is known today, that you can take a CO2 measurement and it varies by 100s of ppm depending upon the location. How is it that the samples we took from the ice cores didn’t show that variation? Mankind again? Perhaps, perhaps not. The fact is, from a couple of ice cores we don’t know jack and to accept them as truth probably isn’t prudent until more can be known and demonstrated.
Nor is ice a static, motionless, object. But then even the land the ice was on, the antarctic, isn’t static and motionless. As far as ice cores from the arctic……. nope, not even likely to be accurate not to time nor place.

I know you are, but what am I?

Adding 3% every year since 1980 suggests that the 2009 CO2 content of the atmosphere should be 796 ppm instead of the measured 382. So there must be a very effective sink somewhere that took an additional 458 ppm out of the atmosphere. That is 90% of the supposed human contribution. Add 100% of the other 97% which is natural (non-anthropogenic) CO2 to get 97%+2.7% which is 99.7%. So they are worried about 0.3% discrepancy? Surely they can’t measure the two components that accurately.

“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm
“I’m stating we can’t demonstrate it. Without the assumption that mankind is the cause of the increased atmospheric CO2, can anyone show or demonstrate what the net effect of any part of the rest of variables to this equation?”
Unless I am misinterpreting what you are saying, I think it is more than an assumption that we put a lot of CO2 into the air that would otherwise not be there. We can start with the basic equation for the complete combustion of gasoline for a start:
2C8H18 + 25O2 —> 16CO2 + 18H2O. (If you want others for coal or methane, I could provide them too.) The point is, we have a pretty good idea how much hydrocarbons we burn each year and how much extra CO2 we humans are responsible for. But it seems as if only half can be accounted for in the atmosphere.
See the following where the quote is made: “According to the study, the Earth has continued to absorb more than half of the carbon dioxide pumped out by humans over the last 160 years.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6538300/Climate-change-study-shows-Earth-is-still-absorbing-carbon-dioxide.html

Well, cancel my calculations. It’s not my night for doing so. The 3% number is the fraction of CO2 emitted annually, not a 3% increase from the previous level. I’ll have go find the gigaton figures and recalculate.

Ancient records show that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was once many thousands of ppm higher than the levels currently experienced.
If water vapor provided a positive feedback then there would have been a runaway greenhouse world many millions of years ago and there would be no life on earth today of any sort.

It’s late and I’m not real sharp. I know that somehow with my focus on birds I can come up with something about Julia Gillard. I just haven’t got it yet. She sure does have a fine beak though..

“A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form”
And the relevance of that is?

James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Yes, Werner, we have a fair approximation of how much we emit in our fuel use and the like. However, it in no way equates to the increase of atmospheric CO2.
Oh, yes it does: we have quite accurate calculations of CO2 from fuel use (based on sales) and very accurate measurements of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere. The latter is the same for 95% of the atmosphere, i.e. all over the oceans and above 1,000 m over land. What happens in the first 1,000 m over land is unimportant, even if that was zero or 1,000 ppmv, that only represents small changes in the bulk of the atmosphere. But have a look at the correlation between accumulated emissions and accumulation in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
I don’t know of any natural process that would follow human emissions in such an exact way.
The equation 2ppm(the average yearly increase) = x -y + (mankind’s emissions) where x-y = 0 is simplistic and not based in anything other than an assumption. And is shown not to be correct.
Even if it is simplistic (the best theories are the simplest…), it is quite accurate. It is the difference between rather accurate CO2 emissions and very accurate measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is completely unimportant to know any individual flow or its variations over the years, because we know the endresult:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
All it says is that, at least in the past 60 years, nature was a net sink for CO2, not a source. No matter how much volcanoes were emitting (which is less than 1% of fossil fuel use), how much animals were emitting (which doesn’t count, as what we and they emit was captured a few months before by plants)… Shareholders don’t need to know all ins and outs of a bussiness (they better should), but they are very interested in the gain (or loss) at the end of the year…
The net natural production can’t possibly consistently negative
It never was, but before mankind, there was a dynamic equilibrium between temperature and CO2 levels over the past near million years (geological times are not comparable, these had different ocean compositions and different geological formations). The more you are over that equilibrium, the more is captured by the sinks (oceans as well as plants).
While the timing of gas composition vs. ice age is quite difficult to establish, there is little doubt that the ice cores represent the average CO2 level of the past 800,000 years, be it more smoothed for the longest periods back in time. The objections of Jaworowski (1992) were already refuted in 1996 by Etheridge e.a.:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
We don’t know the capacitance for sinking.
Please, before saying such things, have a look at the literature. We have a pretty good idea of the total sink capacity over the past 60 years, and we have a rough idea of how much of that is going into the oceans and vegetation:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
About the sink speed, see:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
And have a look at my comprehensive overview of why humans are responsible for the CO2 increase over the past 160 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Further, all these points were discussed at WUWT some time ago, simply search my name here…
And finally, I completely agree with Werner Brozek, that we should focus on the lack of effect of the 30+% CO2 increase since pre-industrial times, as the “we may not be responsible for the increase” is a lost argument.

Malcolm Green there is one Green in the House of Representatives. She is getting her lower house support from the Independents and they are not listening at all, yet losing support in their own electorate. Last time the senate didn’t not vote for the ETS. Now with a few more inmates
since August they do have a few more. Whether this legislation is passed by the lower house is questionable as I am sure many of the present ALP there are being told by their electorates
that the carbon tax legislation is a no goer. Percentages are not fully explained, 4% of Greenhouse gases is CO2 and less than 1% can be attributed to humans. The rest is natural
occurring. The components of the air we breathe is that CO2 is about 1 percent. Humans
enhance greenhouse gases period. But not dangerously as the warmist’s suggest.

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 27, 2011 at 1:20 am
James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Yes, Werner, we have a fair approximation of how much we emit in our fuel use and the like. However, it in no way equates to the increase of atmospheric CO2.
=================================================================
Oh, yes it does: we have quite accurate calculations of CO2 from fuel use (based ……….
===================================================================
Ferdinand, you missed my point and, you missed the obvious. You are making assumption to world history based, mostly upon observations of the last 60 years, when it doesn’t make sense to assume yearly equilibrium until our lifetime. And, again, I’m not stating that we aren’t responsible, I’m stating it cannot be demonstrated that we are. Further, I find it interesting that you would mention the ice core evidence, but ignore the evidence of when earth’s CO2 was much higher.
“The net natural production can’t possibly consistently negative…”
“It never was, but before mankind, there was a dynamic equilibrium between temperature and CO2 levels over the past near million years (geological times are not comparable, these had different ocean compositions and different geological formations).”
What mechanism made the CO2 higher? What mechanism took it out? What happened to that mechanism? Did it die? Claiming we must dismiss earlier history because things were different back then and only address the things which are making the earth different today, while out of hand dismissing many other explanations for changes today, seems a bit unreasonable.
While I agree that the earth is an equilibrium seeking machine, I find it strange that the only equilibrium it seems to have ever achieved, was a trace gas level in the earth’s atmosphere. And that equilibrium was only lost in the last 60 years after finally and only achieving relative equilibrium during the last million years or so. Ferdinand, does that make any sense to you?
“Further, all these points were discussed at WUWT some time ago, simply search my name here…” lol, yes, Ferdinand, I remember.
Ferdinand, at the end of the day, I find myself believing most of what you write, but believing and knowing are two very different things. Over the last 20 years or so, what I’ve come to know, is that we should challenge it all, accept nothing, make people show their work, and understand that most assumptions about our climate are wrong.
Best wishes,
James

Carbon free leftist politicians.
Any ideas both sides can agree on, are good ideas indeed!

I, for one, sincerely hope that the carbon tax goes through in Australia. No, I’m not a koolaide drinking agw socialist, hear me out. If Australia succeeds in implementing this tax, the logical result is a massive hit to their economy. It will provide a perfectly clear example to the rest of the world that will illustrate just how idiotic and destructive the whole agw scam can be to their economies should they let their idiotic lefty political parties get into office and actually try to follow up on that crap. I say better Australia than where I live, in Canada. And I thank god that the Conservatives got into office again.

Nothing changed Julia Gillards mind about a carbon tax. That was her plan all along. If she had announced the tax before the election she would not have been elected. By sucking in the electorate, who thought it would now be safe to vote for Labor, she with the help of the greens could do anything they liked after the election. As I said that was her plan and It highlights the level of respect she has for the Australian people. Her plan just before the next election will be to try a buy off voters with baubles and trinkets in the form of tax cuts. I hope the Australian public do not fall for this.

“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Tell me, which scientifically backed estimation of time do you believe is the half life of emitted CO2 in the the atmosphere? A couple of years? Hundreds? Or the safe moderate guess of about 10-20?”
I believe 38 years. See: The atmosphere has a CO2 decay function with a half-life time of about 38 years as will be shown in the following.
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
“James Sexton says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:13 am
What mechanism made the CO2 higher? What mechanism took it out? What happened to that mechanism? Did it die?”
It was a combination of Milankovitch cycles and the fact that oceans hold less CO2 in hot water than in cold water. As well, there is an equilibrium between CO2 in the air and CO2 dissolved in the water. If the temperature of Earth were to suddenly heat up, the oceans would expel a lot of CO2. But at the present time, the oceans are not changing much in temperature, however we humans are emitting a lot of CO2 into the air. According to Le Chatelier’s principle, the system will adjust to this stress by causing the oceans to absorb some of the extra CO2. This mechanism is still alive and well.
P.S. Thank you very much Ferdinand Engelbeen for your excellent responses! I will retire next month as a high school physics and chemistry teacher so I will be able to respond to comments sooner.

O/T But everyone tune into Joanne Nova’s site. There is a national convoy organised, yes, national coming from as far as Darwin (up north) and from as far away as Perth (west) to converge on Canberra. With a strong anti carbon tax message and no confidence in the government. With this type of mass protest it is hard to see if the legislation will pass.
Sorry fellow Canuke, we don’t want it as it is useless and destructive for our economy and way of life. The convoy made up of truckies and anyone with a motor vehicle, sounds like Ghandi’s march to the sea to make salt, eh, in protest to the British Raj tax on salt. It will be converging and stopping at various points on their way to Canberra, one will be on the 14th August in Tamworth (Tony Windsor’s seat) that is also holding public rallys and forums on this day.
I heard of this when I attended Robert Carters forum on the 21st July in Tamworth. I just hope it doesn’t get violent or the stupid government bring in the traffic cops. Especially as Christine Milne wants to stop the media from publishing anti-carbon tax articles and real climate change science that contradicts their stupid and political One world government agenda. Good talk by the Czech
president at the National Press club, Canberra on the 25th July. Available on http:/samuelgordonstewart.com/2011/07/president-klaus-address-to-the-national-press-club Probably a bit too intellectual for a lot of AGW warmists. But Cardinal Pell, Prof Robert Carter, Lord Christopher Monckton were present and he praised the last two’s books. Well worth an hour to watch. He was prohibited from entering parliament house by the way, but ex PM Tony Blair was admitted no problems at all. I’ve never seen anything as big as this in Australia, not
Nation wide at least that is how strong Australian’s feel about this present government’s agendas.

“suyts says:
July 27, 2011 at 11:01 pm
…and if nature changes through us, it is because it was necessary for nature to change”
I do not completely agree here. We have caused pollution and things like Chernobyl happened that would not have happened otherwise.
“You guys both gave well reasoned, articulate responses……. wrong, in some cases, but well reasoned.”
I would suggest that “wrong” is not the correct word. Just because you did not agree with everything does not mean we were wrong.
“Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 28, 2011 at 4:16 pm
As long as no CO2 escapes to space, ”
As you no doubt know, we can be certain that is not happening. With the Boltzmann Distribution Curve and Earth’s gravity and temperatures at the outer atmosphere, only hydrogen and helium can reach the escape velocity and since kinetic energy is 1/2mv2, the lighter elements have the higher potential speeds.
“What happens in the first 1,000 m over land is unimportant”
I am glad you clarified that! It was the only thing you said that perplexed me. I guess it is sort of like taking the air temperature with jet exhaust fumes blowing against the thermometer.