A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form. Here’s the entire slide show online from Philip R. Wood in Australia given July 14th.
Here’s the slide show link – it may take a bit to load on your PC as it is large.
While there are some good points in the presentation, there are a couple of slides that are questionable due to them not showing the most current data, such as the UAH satellite plot taken from my blog in April. The most recent one is here:
Wayne Swan, Gillard’s partner in this carbon tax crime, has stated, at a coal mine where miners were “worried” about job losses, that coal output would double with the carbon tax. So its OK to export “carbon pollution”, subsidised by the Aussie taxpayer, but we can’t burn it ourselves? So, just doing some rough calculations, Australia exports ~140mt/y. Each tonne of coal if burnt produces ~3 tonnes of CO2 = ~420mt of CO2 p/a, and doubling this will save the planet. Yeah right!
Werner Brozek says:
July 26, 2011 at 8:19 pm
“James Sexton says:
July 26, 2011 at 6:00 pm
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. ….(lol)….. 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.
===============================================================
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. In fact, as you point out, over half is unaccounted for, but that is only accounting for such things as fuel use. If that type of thinking were correct, wouldn’t have the exponential rise in our population alone,(and the exponential rise of farm animal population) even without fuel use, set us out of harmonic CO2 balance….. given our respirations and all……. We do know that all carbon sinks will give it back up at some point in some form or another. We don’t know this isn’t occurring now. 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? The fact is, we don’t know. We don’t know the duration, we don’t know how much each sink is sinking, we don’t know how much the other emitters are emitting. We don’t know the capacitance for sinking. We only have one rough estimation of one variable in an equation of nearly infinite variables and infinite weightings of such. But, what we do assume is that they somehow are nearly balanced on a yearly basis and nearly constant, save for mankind’s emissions. And, I don’t believe there is a basis for such assumptions.
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. As you stated, x-y hasn’t equaled zero. x being all natural emissions and y being all sinks, x-y has equaled a negative number if we go by that equation. Again, I’m not stating we are not the cause for the increase, I’m stating we don’t know that we are. Chemical formulas or not. I think we are boxing ourselves in when we operate under assumptions which are clearly suspect.
James
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..
For the flatulence intolerant Aussie PM may I recommend abundant and enjoyable food and drink, and a good supply of this:
http://www.beanogas.com/
Life is too short for to allow culinary mediocrity.
“A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form”
And the relevance of that is?
“The $3.5 billion cost of closing down efficiently functioning brown coal power stations in Victoria and Southern Australia comes out of a taxpayer funded ‘contigency fund.'”
Usually one thinks of keeping the power and water ON with a contingency fund. But you’ve got PM Gillard to set you straight. Mate.
“stevo says:
July 26, 2011 at 11:25 pm”
I guess the relevance is labelling “carbon” as pollution as well as the dumb quote in the slide at the head of the tread.
stevo says:
July 26, 2011 at 11:25 pm
“A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form”
And the relevance of that is?”
_______________________________________________
Carbon Dioxide is the very substance of life. You are a life form (presumably). It is entirely inappropriate to tax the composition and sustenance of every higher life form on earth.
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.
DCC says:
July 26, 2011 at 8:11 pm
A 3% increase every year would have produced a 2010 measurement of 1349ppm.
That is the exact reason why the 3% is misleading. The 3% is the current percentage if you compare the emissions with the natural emissions. But the latter is not one-way, but only going back and forth between the atmosphere and the other reservoirs (oceans and the biosphere) over the seasons. That is circulation, not addition. There is no net addition by nature, only a net sink over a year. That sink is about halve the emissions, thus the net result is an increase in the atmosphere of about halve the emissions. That is already so for at least the past 60 years of accurate measurements and probably longer (based on ice cores).
Thus it doesn’t matter how much % of the circulation the emissions are, even if what nature emits and absorbs is 10 times smaller or 100 times larger. Only the difference at the end of the seasonal cycle counts. And that is 4 +/- 2 GtC/year, while the emissions are at 8 GtC/year. The variability in sink capacity is directly related to temperature variations, but is relatively small, probably because oceans and vegetation react opposite to temperature.
Werner Brozek says:
July 26, 2011 at 8:19 pm
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.
Yes, but that is not the issue of the debate. What we don’t know is what absolute amount of CO2 natural processes emit or absorb, therefore we don’t know what percentage of the overall CO2 flux the human contribution actually is, even though we roughly know its absolute mass.
Another thing we don’t know is how flexible natural processes are in absorbing any additional CO2. For example it could well be that photosynthetic plants absorb most of the added human CO2 (and thus thrive), and that something else, i.e. some natural process, is adding even more CO2 than the plants can currently cope with, which would explain the measured CO2 increase.
For example it is imagineable that human produced CO2 is statistical noise compared to any natural process, and that the measured CO2 increase is caused by the oceans outgassing massive amounts of CO2, due to them being slightly warmed by any number of natural causes.
Perhaps PM Gillard should go on a Carbon free diet for a couple of months. That would solve everyones problem.
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.
anorak2 says:
July 27, 2011 at 3:23 am
we don’t know what percentage of the overall CO2 flux the human contribution actually is, even though we roughly know its absolute mass.
Take a fountain where a huge pump is pumping water around from the bassin below. No matter if the pump delivers 100, 1,000 or 10,000 liter/hour, nothing happens with the level in the bassin (except for some evaporation). Add a hose which delivers a flow of 1 liter water per hour, and the bassin will give an overflow after some time, no matter if the additional flow is 1% or 0.1% or 0.01% of the main flux.
Thus the height of the natural flux is not important at all, only the difference between influx and outflux is important, and that is quite exactly known: nowadays 4 +/- 2 GtC (about 2 +/- 1 ppmv) net sink per year. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em.jpg
The sink rate is the difference between what is emitted by humans and what is measured as increase in the atmosphere. Even if one of the underlying inflows increased a 10-fold (e.g. the Pinatubo eruption), something else may – or may not – compensate for that, but anyway the net result over one year (a full seasonal cycle) is known. E.g. in the case of the Pinatubo, the cooling of the oceans, due to the sunlight blocking by its volcanic dust, more than compensated for the extra CO2 from the eruption: that year (1992), the CO2 increase was minimal.
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
Jeff T thank you for that video clip. I watched live the same question given by Julie Bishop to the
treasurer Wayne Swan. It seems they don’t want to admit that at Cancun in Mexico last December Australia committed $600 million a year! To the UN Green Climate change fund, to be distributed by the UN to countries who are suffering climate change disasters caused by carbon emissions from developed countries.
They won’t answer the question directly or truthfully. However recently the US Congress passed a bill to cease any contributions to this fund. They have wised up. Now the Greens are suggesting that the media in Australia should be banned from printing any reports from anti-climate change science that contradicts their science. Much like Chris Hulne in UK suggested that fighting climate
change deniers was like fighting Hitler! And in the Australian Press that deniers should be branded and another we should be gassed. When will this madness end? What I object to
is they asked ‘Do you believe in climate change? Yes or No. Of course we believe in climate change but not AGW!
Carbon free leftist politicians.
Any ideas both sides can agree on, are good ideas indeed!
“Carbon Dioxide is the very substance of life.”
You’re 70% water. Doesn’t mean you can’t drown.
stevo says:
July 27, 2011 at 10:00 am
“Carbon Dioxide is the very substance of life.”
You’re 70% water. Doesn’t mean you can’t drown.
So then, you’d be in agreement with, and would sign the following petition right?
“Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage.
Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain
contributes to the “greenhouse effect.”
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the Midwest, and recently California.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain “junk-foods” and other food products.
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its “importance to the economic health of this nation.” In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.
It’s Not Too Late!
Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous chemical. What you don’t know can hurt you and others throughout the world.
Sign this petition and help stop This Invisible Killer.”
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/ban-dihydrogen-oxide.html
“stevo says:
July 26, 2011 at 11:25 pm
“A reminder to PM Gillard: you are a carbon based life form”
And the relevance of that is?”
The short of it: sugar, carbohydrates, protein, fat, DNA… all contain carbon as an essential component. Food is carbon based, as are we.
Basic photosynthesis:
6CO2 + 6H2O + energy from the sun -> C6H12O6 (sugar) + 6O2
Animals eat the sugar (or complex forms of it), and the reaction is reversed:
C6H12O6 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H2O + the energy we need for life.
Too few people know that very basic “cycle of life”.
No (or too little) CO2, and all life on the planet ends.
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.
James Sexton says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:13 am
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 ice core evidence is 800,000 years long, that is a small blip in geological history. During that period, CO2 levels followed temperature variations with some lag (600 to several thousands of years), but with a surprisingly linear ratio. During the Cretaceous, 65 to 145 millions of years ago, CO2 levels were very much higher, but the geological place of the continents was quite different, the deep oceans were much warmer, no ice at the poles and very little temperature difference between the equator and poles. Calcifering algues were thriving enormous and are responsible for the chalk deposits in many countries. These also are responsible for most of the drop in CO2 over the past tens of millions of years, with little possibility of fast return of high CO2 levels…
That makes that over geological era’s there is little correlation between temperature and CO2 levels, but if you look at a smaller time frame where there is little geological change, like in the past near million years, there is a quite good correlation, where CO2 follows temperature variations. In the past 160+ years, CO2 levels don’t follow the ratio with temperature anymore, thus by far exceeding the temperature dictated equilibrium.
I have no problem accepting that humans are responsible for the increase in the atmosphere: the emissions as cause fit every series of observations, while every alternative explanation is in contradiction with one or more observations.
But let us go back to the original complaint: do you agree that the 3% human contribution slide is at least irrelevant (because how much is circulating through the atmosphere doesn’t matter at all) and in fact misleading, as the human contribution is about 200% of the measured increase in the atmosphere?
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.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
July 27, 2011 at 3:33 pm
James Sexton says:
July 27, 2011 at 6:13 am
“…..do you agree that the 3% human contribution slide is at least irrelevant (because how much is circulating through the atmosphere doesn’t matter at all) and in fact misleading, as the human contribution is about 200% of the measured increase in the atmosphere?
I agree that it could be irrelevant. But, the very fact that you state the human contribution is about 200% of the measured increase in the atmosphere tells me we don’t know what we don’t know. And, we’re making assumptions that are baseless. What you and others are essentially stating, is that a CO2 sink mechanism lay dormant for about a million years not engaging, but only engaging in the last 60 years to compensate for man’s emissions. Ferdinand, I agree with the posit and believe there will be more to engage if CO2 continues to propagate. And, that all of this talk about man’s being responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is what is irrelevant. But, again, we don’t know the equation, much less the variables.
BTW, now that most of the readers have moved on, I thought I’d point out an error in your reasoning………….. You had stated,………….. “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……………”
If that statement is true, then I think it appropriate to state the exhaust from my respirations are typically at a higher elevation than the exhaust of my pickup truck. Perhaps, this is your missing 50% of human emissions? Perhaps SUVs and burning of gasoline are indeed irrelevant to atmospheric CO2? 🙂
Well, I don’t know everything, either.
Best wishes,
James
“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.