Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Last chance at Durban? The geological dimension of climate change

DURBAN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE: Do the 10,000 or so delegates at Durban, and those whom they represent, fully accept that their mission constitutes no less than an attempt to reverse the suicidal course…

Are we heading for the Miocene? US Government

DURBAN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE: Do the 10,000 or so delegates at Durban, and those whom they represent, fully accept that their mission constitutes no less than an attempt to reverse the suicidal course on which human civilisation has embarked? If they do, it is unlikely they would have had any hesitation in reaching decisions promoting an effective global mitigation effort.

Which begs the question: do they comprehend the magnitude of the current shift in state of the atmosphere-ocean system? Do they realise this is the largest-scale carbon oxidation event of the past 55 million years?¹

The atmosphere facilitates the carbon dioxide and oxygen cycles on which the biosphere depends. This can be compared to the role of the lungs in allowing the CO₂ and oxygen cycles of the human body. An excess or deficiency of these gases critically affects the behaviour of both the atmosphere-ocean system and of organisms.

Figure 1: Global temperature and greenhouse gas forcing (GHG) due to CO₂, CH₄ and N2O based on the Vostok ice core. The scale is expanded for the industrial era. Ratio of temperature and forcing scales is 1.5ºC per W/m², giving the slow feedback equilibrium response to GHG change and surface albedo change. Modern forcing include human-made aerosols, volcanic aerosols and solar irradiance. Hansen

The paleo-climate record allows high precision documentation of the history of the atmosphere-ocean system. Researchers can draw data from ice cores, sediments, coral reefs, cave deposits, fossil leaves and a wide range of proxies for ocean and land temperature, CO₂, salinity, dust and other climate-related parameters. They can look at the past to see what sort of future we may face. They can look at the past to study the behaviour of the atmosphere-ocean system and, through this, make observations regarding future trends.

The radiative forcing (energy level) of the atmosphere has risen by more than 3 Watt/m² (see Figure 1) due to greenhouse gases (CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone) and land clearing. This forcing exceeds previous interglacial atmosphere energy levels by more than 2 Watt/m² (Figure 1), translating to a more than 2°C increase in average global temperatures.

These studies suggest 21st century climate trends are tracking toward ice-free Earth conditions, like those that existed when atmospheric CO₂ levels exceeded 500 parts per million.

The Earth will pass between intermediate stages as it moves from glacial to greenhouse conditions. These would be analogous to peak Pliocene (about 3 million years ago) climates and peak Miocene (about 16 million years ago) climates, when temperatures were around 2 to 4°C higher than pre-industrial Holocene levels.

Figure 2 A. Development of radiative forcing 1880-2010 in terms of energy changes of greenhouse gases (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, O₃), human emitted aerosols (mainly SO₂), volcanic eruptions, solar radiation and land use. B. Net variations in global energy levels (based on A). Hansen

Climate projections for the 21st century and beyond include the following considerations:

  • The current Earth–atmosphere energy balance (the difference between energy/heat absorbed from solar radiation and emitted back to space) is estimated at +3.2 Watt/m² relative to pre-industrial age conditions, correlated with a temperature rise of 2.3°C. This is a consequence of rising greenhouse gases, land clearing and fires (see Figure 2).

  • This temperature rise is currently masked by the approximately -1.1°C cooling effect of sulphur aerosols emitted from fossil fuel burning. Removing them would result in an abrupt temperature rise. The gradual temperature rise projections such as portrayed by the IPCC-AR4 do not portray the effect of sulphur aerosols.

  • We are now at 392 parts-per-million (ppm) of CO₂ in the atmosphere and 455 ppm CO₂-equivalent (including the effect of methane and nitrous oxide). The rise of CO₂ surpasses rates recorded from the past 55 million years. From past events, we know the atmosphere is sensitive to radiative forcing at levels currently approached.

  • As the large ice sheets continue to melt, we can expect transient cooling of sub-polar ocean regions. This could lead to collapse of the North Atlantic Thermohaline Current, with consequent abrupt cooling of Western Europe and North-east America.

  • Estimates of sea level rise depend on the melt rate of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The most reliable indication of the imminence of multi-metre sea level rise may be provided by empirical evaluation of the doubling time for ice sheet mass reported by Velicogna.

Climate change is increasingly expressed through the rise in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events around the world. The new IPCC-2011-AR5 draft report says we should expect higher and more frequent daily temperature extremes, and more frequent and intense heat waves. This is without taking the likelihood of tipping points into account.

The history of the atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere system and the extreme rate of greenhouse gas rise in the atmosphere suggest the likelihood of tipping points triggered by amplifying feedbacks, including opening of the Arctic Ocean, melting of ice sheets, release of methane from permafrost and lakes and forest fires.

Time to take things seriously. Andrew Glikson

The situation is now serious enough that some are considering further changes to the Earth’s atmosphere to minimise the effects of climate change.

Geo-engineering ideas aimed at averting tipping points in the climate system include two main approaches: solar shielding and CO₂ sequestration. Specifically, these include:

  • stratospheric sulphur injections: short-lived and destructive, acidify the ocean, retard the monsoon and disrupt precipitation over large parts of the Earth, including Africa, southern and south-east Asia
  • retarding solar radiation through space sunshades: short-lived, doesn’t prevent ocean acidification, but could be used to gain time for application of CO₂ draw-down
  • adding iron filings to the ocean as algal nutrients: likely ineffective in transporting CO₂ for storage in safe water depths
  • CO₂ sequestration using soil carbon, biochar and possible chemical methods such as “sodium trees”: if combined with rapid decline in industrial CO₂ emissions, can in principle help slow down and (if applied on a global scale) maybe reverse the current rise in atmospheric CO₂.

If the Durban meeting is serious about combatting climate change, it is time to look beyond half-formed attempts at mitigation. Budgets on a scale of military spending (>$20 trillion since World War II) would be required for any attempt to retard the current trend.

Top priority ought to be given to fast-track testing of soil carbon burial, biochar, chemical methods and serpentine-based sequestration. The conference must look at how to provide incentives for invention and development of new CO₂ sequestration methods.

It is likely a species which has succeeded in placing a man on the moon can also be successful in developing effective CO₂ sequestration methods. To do it, coordinated global efforts must be made and suitable funding has to be provided.

As stated by Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Climate Impacts Institute, “We’re simply talking about the very life support system of this planet”.

References

  1. Zachos et al., 2008. Nature, Vol 451, p 279–283; Zachos et al., 2001. Science, Vol 292, p 686–693; Glikson, 2008. Aust. Journal Australia Earth Science, 55, 125-140.

Join the conversation

100 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Marc Hendrickx

    Geologist

    Giant sloth burgers appear on the menu. I can't wait!

    report
  2. Chris Plant

    Engineer

    Last chance for this pseudoscience to come clean!. This is a 'vampire' science. Any bits of it that are exposed to light wither and die.

    The Climategate emails have exposed the deceit and calumny behind this scientific hoax. As have McIntyre and a host of others.

    "The paleo-climate record allows high precision documentation"! Bollocks. There is a great deal of uncertainty and subjective interpretation associated with the paleo-record. The error bands are much wider than Glikson admits to…

    Read more
    1. Felix MacNeill

      Environmental Manager

      In reply to Chris Plant

      Chris, the problem, however, seems to be with the 'et al' you mention in your final paragraph. The fact that it happens to include virtually all publishing climate scientists and the world's major (and rather conservative) scientific academies pretty much suggests that what you're syaing is that science is on the wrong side of history and real science.

      Of course it's possible, but you'd have to admit it was a freak event - unprecedented in the history of modern science. You're also going to have to argue that the various independent investigations into the so-called 'climategate' leaked emails were somehow part of some giant conspiracy to hide the truth. If that's the case, we're also dealing with what must be the most powerful and effective conspiracy ever concocted in recorded history.

      Of course, it's possible - almost anything is - I just wouldn't want to bet my future on it.

      report
    2. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Chris Plant

      Chris Plant. I am interested in the "scientific hoax" idea.

      I am assuming that James Hansen has a massive solar raygun on the darkside of the moon that he brings out while we are all asleep to melt glaciers and polar ice and raise global temperatures.
      http://www.climate.gov/#climateWatch

      Clearly he also has a time machine to go back and influence all the scientists and scientific organisations since Fourier in 1824 who have argued that greenhouse gases warm the earth.
      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

      He was also around in 1958 when this educational documentary was made for USA science middle schools warning of global warming.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

      You have to agree that my ideas are just as plausible as yours. And I advance exactly the same amount of evidence as you.

      report
    3. Tim Scanlon

      Author and Scientist

      In reply to Chris Plant

      Another list of incorrect denier claims. "Against the laws of thermodynamics" - LOL.

      Chris, you are seriously in need of a scientific journal and hours of reading. Denier blogs are not real information.

      report
  3. Tim Scanlon

    Author and Scientist

    I don't think that the people at Durban really understand the magnitude of what we need to avoid. But I don't think many, if any, of the people they represent understand the magnitude. We only have to see the consistent denial comment posts in the climate change articles on this site for evidence of that.

    I'll still be alive in the last half of this century. My children will be alive into the next century. I feel that the most ardent deniers are not in this situation, they are not invested in the planet's future. The science is clear and 97% of the scientists are 90% sure. I'm for backing them rather than the 3% with the 10% (or less) chance of being correct.

    report
  4. John Chapman

    At large

    Thanks very much Andrew.

    I'll take aboard your science any day rather than Chris Plant's rants.

    I look forward - NOT - to continuing releases of greenhouse gases from the thawing areas of Siberia, then to further warming, then to further releases from Siberia and perhaps the ocean floor ....

    report
  5. Nick Kermode

    logged in via email @hotmail.com

    Thanks Andrew. Like the Titanic cartoon also! Still it seems these latest rounds of 'talks' and 'committee meetings' have more in common with the Peoples Front of Judea rescue mission for Brian than a recipe for meaningful action to save the human race.....as per usual

    report
  6. Peter Davies

    Bio-refinery technology developer

    Giant sloth burgers? Vampires? Sounds like an example of genetic memory with a little recessive salivating gene thrown in...

    Two observations from a non scientist who has had much to do with the scientific community over the years, often challenging their assumptions or conclusions (but rarely their professionalism):

    1. My reading suggests that the conservative nature of most scientists has led to the climate problem being understated, rather than being the claimed alarmist. Andrews article is…

    Read more
  7. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    Climate scientists wish their data and observations are mistaken, since, if they are correct, civilization and nature are now threatened. Conversely, it the science is wrong, the "worst" which would happen is that - while carbon pollution is reduced - the world would move to apply clean energy solutions.

    By contrast those who deny the science appear to entertain little doubt, despite the fact that, if they are wrong, the demise of climate conditions which allowed the flourishing of agriculture…

    Read more
    1. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      May I add an item to your list, Dr Glikson? If so, it would be:

      E. Disregard of consistent worldwide trends of changes to the timing of season-specific animal behaviour, notably as earlier spring migrations of animals to high-latitude feeding/breeding grounds.

      Whereas we can conduct our temperature measurements, adjust our heating and cooling, clothing and food, (and then comment online about whether climate change is real or not) migrating animals are continually make decisions that affect their chances of staying alive.

      report
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      “Conversely, it the science is wrong, the "worst" which would happen is that - while carbon pollution is reduced - the world would move to apply clean energy solutions.”

      Wrong! If the policies you and the alarmists advocate are implemented they seriously damage the world’s economy. The effects on humanity would be fatalities, and poorer conditions for most, with the poorest being the worst effected. Not quite: “would reduce societies to subsistence levels”, but still bad. That is what many Alarmists, perhaps most, do not seem to recognise.

      “D. Play the man rather than the ball, with comments replete with conspiracy theories and derogatory comments against climate scientists.”

      There is plenty of that by the regulars on TC. I suggest you calling those who do not accept your alarmist views “deniers” would fit into the category of those who play the man rather than the ball. Your implications are playing the man rather than the ball.

      report
    3. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      IF the science is wrong?

      Here's some simple science, which inevitably leads us to large-scale collapse in Gold Coast canal estate property values.

      Earth is warmed by absorbtion of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth's temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a 'black body' radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth's spectrum…

      Read more
    4. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to David Arthur

      Where your "science" goes wrong is referring to "optical surface temperature of around 255K." which you then immediately refer to as "Earth's surface"

      The "optical surface" is NOT the Earth's surface. It is a weighted mean location in the atmosphere because, after all, the atmosphere is contributing to the radiation as seen from space.

      The importance of this error is that the 255K refers to the weighted mean temperature of the atmosphere and the surface, not the surface alone.

      A temperature gradient is established because warm air rising physically by convection takes a finite time to do so. Hence the temperature plot is warmer than the mean at the surface and cooler than the mean at TOA. Just like we observe. GHG does not come into it.

      report
    5. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Doug, with respect, I suggest that you have misunderstood what I have written.

      The term 'optical surface temperature' appears in the clause: "FROM SPACE the earth's spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around 255K" (capitalisation hopefully added for ease of comprehension).

      The term 'Earth's surface' is then used as in common parlance, that is at the lower boundary of the atmosphere.

      The construction that takes up the remainder of your comment is therefore founded on a misunderstanding; for this reason, it founders.

      report
  8. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    This article is an example of scare-mongering and extreme CAGW Alarmism. Where is the balance for this sort of propaganda? Surely our academics can do better than this.

    “their mission constitutes no less than an attempt to reverse the suicidal course on which human civilisation has embarked?”

    The article does not explain the consequences of warming?

    What’s so wrong with a bit of warming? What’s so bad about improving the planet’s insulation a little (projected about 1% average temperature…

    Read more
    1. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Dr Curry's article does not consider the losses due to sea level rise.

      I suggest the peer-reviewed 5-page article by Rignot et al, "Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise", Geophysical Research Letters, vol 38, (2011).

      Rignot et al present observations showing that melting of terrestrial polar (Greenland and West Antartica) icecaps is presently accelerating at such rate that these sources could add 15 cm to sea levels by 2050, and 56 cm by 2100.

      It is worth noting that sea level rise due to melting of terrestrial icesheets are not included in work to date used by the IPCC; it is understood that AR5 WG1 (due in 2013?) will be the first IPCC report that will consider these sources for sea level rise.

      report
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      I wonder what would lead David Arthur to says the "article does not consider losses due to sea level rise. I wonder why he didn't point out where it states that losses due to sea level rise are excluded from the total economic costs being analysed as a consequence of AGW.

      report
    3. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      The Curry article made no mention of sea level rises, despite sea level rise being one of the most inexorable as well as being one of the more rapid effects of climate change to affect OECD nations.

      report
    4. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      The Curry article was a summry of the main article. Didn't you read it (and follow through the references if you wan to). The article discusses the economic consequences of AGW (that is, all the consequences unless some are specifically excluded, whcih they were not). Perhaps you should follw the links.

      report
    5. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      It the temperature is 5 deg.C ice is going to melt and contribute to higher sea levels.

      Keep it at 5 deg.C (with level climate trends) and it's still going to melt and contribute to higher sea levels.

      report
    6. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      As Peter has pointed out, the ice (ALL the ice) is going to melt eventually before the very long term cycle heads back down towards the next ice age.

      This will happen because, even thousands of years ago, the world was already at temperatures at which more ice melts than re-forms - because, guess what, ice melts into the oceans at any temperature above 0 deg.C.

      Whether what would have happened in, say, 1,000 years from now actually happens in 900 years is just a matter of timing. It's going to…

      Read more
    7. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Doug, the claim that ALL the ice was going to melt anyway before the earth returns to the next Ice Age is readily refuted by reference to the ice core temperature-CO2 record.

      The ice core temperature-CO2 record shows that the Holocene Epoch (the interglacial period that began approximately 12,000 yeas ago, and within which ALL recorded human history has occurred) was a relatively small, weak interglacial period.

      The Eemian Epoch (the previous interglacial period, about 130,000 years before…

      Read more
    8. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      You have to get "but for industrial man" in there don't you? Have you studied carefully the fairly steep rise in the decade or two before 1880, just for starters?

      I'm really not interested in discussing what the AGW theory says as I am well aware of it, and also of its major fallacies as outlined in my challenge points (1) and (2) - so let's just keep to those points please. I'm sure you'll find a copy of the post somewhere.

      report
    9. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Doug, with all due respect, all our exchanges consist of me correcting your misunderstandings. Having done likewise for various other people over the last couple of years, I'm getting tired of so doing [although you have managed at least one doozy I've not previously encountered].

      I have no reason to imagine that "challenge points (1) and (2)" are anything other more misunderstanding on your part.

      report
  9. Doug Cotton

    IT Manager

    I wonder if this paper was held back a bit - only published on Monday ..

    It shows (in Fig 8) what I estimate to be about 0.45 degrees increase between 1979 and 2010 after removing the influence of ENSO, solar radiance etc. That equates to about 1.3 degrees by 2100 – a fair bit less than IPCC minimum estimates.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

    Furthermore, if there are 60 year cycles, the period selected would have been on an upswing in such, so the gradient is overestimated. Hence I still say the 60 year trend showing 0.60 degrees in 60 years is an accurate trend. http://theconversation.homestead.com/60years.jpg

    Note that an important point in the above paper is that they found no significant increase in the gradient, so a linear extrapolation would appear valid.

    So let’s all rejoice that we now have empirical evidence that the maximum likely increase is of the order of only 1.3 degrees C by 2100.

    report
    1. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      WARNING - the link in Doug "cycles" Cotton's comment is to an external site which Cotton has named with the prefix "theconversation" to lure people to his own web site.

      Doug is a serial crank - venture there at your own risk.

      report
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      So Doug is a serial crank is he? And the Alarmist who pedal their exaggeration and scare-mongering are not, eh?

      I heard a bit about the devious shinnanigans of another TC regular (a CAGW Alarmists) today.

      report
    3. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      In fact I created this empty site purely for storing images which I wished to attach to posts in this forum, thus avoiding having to enter links to those same images on my main sites - and so not in fact promoting such - quite the opposite of Dr Harrigan's assumptions regarding my purpose.

      Dr Harrigan adopts a policy of never addressing the specific issues which John Nicol and I raise and which are based on standard physics, including quantum mechanics which is fundamental to an understanding of…

      Read more
    4. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Mr Cotton's understanding of standard physics includes the suggestion that oxygen and nitrogen are incapable of emitting thermal energy from earth's atmosphere to space, because they don't have energy absorbtion/emission bands in the IR part of the spectrum.

      [This is remarkable, given its apparent inconsistency with the Planck distribution for blackbody radiation.]

      Mr Cotton sets this out in his discussion with myself and Dr Harrigan at Stephan Lewandowsky's "There is a real climategate out there", on http://theconversation.edu.au/there-is-a-real-climategate-out-there-4428

      report
    5. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Sorry - it was Mike Hansen this time. Expect Dr Harrigan on this thread any time now.

      Dr Harrigan on another thread showed his inability to even use a calculator. The published range of increase in this week's paper was 0.014 to 0.018 deg.C per year. I constructed my own trend on the plot in Fig.8 and deduced my own rates from such, because I feel the upper end of the range they quote is a little high.

      My reading of the graph (Fig 8) http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf led to an estimate of an extra 1.3 deg.C of additional warming (on top of current temperatures) for the 89 years until 2100. This would be at the rate of 1.3 / 89 = 0.0146 deg.C per year which is within the published range. Dr Harrigan considered my calculations incorrect for some reason.

      report
    6. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      Congratulations Doug.

      You have managed to stumble on some actual science.

      The paper you refer to looks at the underlying temperature trends from 1979 - 2010 and debunks the idea that warming has stopped or slowed.

      Even though you have low-balled the figure, you are arguing that if we keep atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 1979 (334ppm) and 2010 (387ppm) levels, we may be able to keep temperature rise to just under 2 degrees (cf pre industrial) by the end of the century.

      Of course the point of Andrew Glikson's article is that we are well on our way to 500ppm+

      report
    7. Doug Cotton

      IT Manager

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Illogical my dear Mike. They say quite clearly that the trend is linear and not increasing in gradient. Hence if the level of carbon dioxide keeps increasing by a similar rate each year the plot will continue to be linear. It was increasing those last 31 years, and yet the trend was linear.

      I have made a slightly more accurate prediction here and actually use a slightly higher figure than 0.016 degrees per year which is the median of their range 0.014 to 0.018 degrees C per year. So I will modify my estimate to 1.47 degrees extra by 2100.

      http://theconversation.homestead.com/1979-2010.jpg

      report
    8. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Doug Cotton

      A couple of the sceptics have been commenting on the Foster paper as if its estimates of warming are lower than those of the IPCC and imply lower sensitivity to carbon dioxide. This is complete rubbish.

      If one goes to http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-3-1-1.html one sees that the IPCC estimates of recent warming are comparable to those of Foster.

      report
    9. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Yes, but the IPCC does not honestly admit that at least the upper limit of their projections should be modified because of the rates they now acknowledge. Clearly if they use the 0.16 per decade rate and the fact that this week's paper confirmed the trend is linear (while carbon dioxide levels are increasing) and if they openly spoke about rates per decade, or per century, rather than continue to confuse the public with absolute increases which are apparently based on 120 years from 1980 to 2100…

      Read more
    10. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      I fully appreciate that you are talking about radiation as seen from space.

      But there is radiation going to space from all levels of the atmosphere at least to some extent. Hence you cannot deduce anything about what the temperature of the "lower boundary of the atmosphere" (surface) is or should be.

      You must treat it as a single complete system - Earth and its atmosphere. the surface is only an internal boundary, like the floor of the ocean.

      The radiating temperature you calculate (255 deg.K…

      Read more
    11. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      And Einstein confirmed it.

      report
    12. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      The most recent IPCC assessment was in 2007, and could not include review of work published after that date.

      report
    13. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      From lower levels of the atmosphere, heat transfer is dominated by conduction (kinetic theory of gases) and convection (eg rising evaporated water). It's only higher up that the atmosphere is thin enough for emitted radiation to not be resorbed by gases higher up ... except for strong absorbers, like CO2.

      In fact, higher up in the atmosphere, there is relatively little water vapour, because the bulk of it has condensed out lower down. In general, any water vapour that makes it up past the stratopause continues rising through the ozone layer to the thermosphere, where its protons are blasted off to space by solar radiation.

      I didn't calculate the radiation temperature. I read it in a book ("Thermal Physics of the Atmosphere", by Maarten Ambaum).

      report
    14. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      Are you trying to imply that the world's land areas will be innundated and only aquatic life will survive?

      It is that sort of exaggeration by Alarmists that is discrediting not only climate science, but all the Left's scaremongering.

      report
    15. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      No.

      Low-lying delta regions, as well as much of the world's built infrastructure may be subject to inundation/storm surge risk. These factors will suffice to present major losses for our heirs and successors.

      report
    16. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      David Arthur - You cannot apply blackbody radiation theory to a molecule. It is hardly a "body." This is exactly the type of error being propagated by those with a "half knowledge" of quantum thermodynamics.

      I dispute your statement "protons (sic) are blasted off into space by solar radiation" and would be interested in seeing documentation. Your use of the word "protons" demonstrates your lack of knowledge in the field which I have long suspected. Just exactly what level of physics have you reached in your academic career?

      .

      report
    17. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      What happens above the stratopause can have very little effect on humanity. Relatively little "back radiation" gets through to the surface, and any warming just results in some extra thermal energy "pooling" in the "valley" of the stratopause.

      So it suffices to focus on the mechanisms in the troposphere where much of the thermal energy transferred from a warmer surface to the atmosphere does indeed happen by conduction which can also be called diffusion when it involves a solid surface in contact…

      Read more
    18. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Blackbody radiation theory is applicable to ensembles of molecules, indeed to ensembles of any particles.

      If you don't like "protons are blasted off into space by solar radiation", try "hydrogen ions are blasted off into space by solar radiation". Perhaps electrons are blasted off also. Oxygen atoms/ions, being larger, are less likely to be blasted off into space.

      What level of physical chemistry have you reached in your academic career?

      report
    19. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Thanks Doug, I wrote "stratopause" where I actually meant "tropopause". The second paragraph should read as follows:

      "In fact, higher up in the atmosphere, there is relatively little water vapour, because the bulk of it has condensed out lower down. In general, any water vapour that makes it up past the tropopause continues rising through the ozone layer to the thermosphere, where its hydrogen ions are blasted off to space by solar radiation."

      O2 and N2 emit IR from wherever, say the upper troposphere…

      Read more
    20. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      Yes, well, David, don't forget to apply your blackbody theory to all those little ensembles of molecules - like stones on the floor of the ocean etc. I feel a little more confident applying it as I have in (1) to the whole Earth system, including the atmosphere, as seen from space..

      So you did mean protons rather than photons? So oxygen and nitrogen are cooled by a nuclear reaction involving splitting the atom, and our atmosphere is being jet propelled proton by proton (but not the neutrons I note) into space, overcoming gravity by harnessing the energy of incoming solar radiation. Welcome to David Arthur's new theory, everyone.

      report
    21. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to David Arthur

      If O2 and N2 emit IR (which they may at certain temperatures to a very limited extent) then they will also absorb IR (just like greenhouse gases) under those conditions.

      If the extent to which they do this is not negligible, then they would have been doing it since the world began. Consequently, because of their numbers compared with carbon dioxide, the vast majority of any greenhouse effect would be due to oxygen and nitrogen and so the effect of carbon dioxide would be immeasurably small…

      Read more
    22. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Michael, I genuinely would like you to address either here or privately the actual issues I summarised yesterday in the post repeated below, for these are totally matters of physics. Hopefully you have enough pride in your PhD subject to realise and help expose that fact that AGW is a travesty of physics. Several professors of physics in other countries have realised this - as you must know. But please address the issues (1) and (2) directly, step by step.

      To anyone - No existing article or paper…

      Read more
    23. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Doug, FYI:

      Water molecules consist of an atom of oxygen and two atoms of hydrogen. Water molecules that rise past the troposphere are exposed to high energy photons, which causes them to dissociate to hydroxyl radicals and energised hydrogen atoms. Energised hydrogen atoms often undergo further dissociation, to hydrogen cations and electrons.

      A modicum of knowledge of chemistry permits awareness that a hydrogen cation consists of a proton. As well as my mistaken reference to stratopause when tropopause was intended, the statement "protons are blasted off into space by solar radiation" assumed this modicum on the part of the reader.

      Nuclear reactions are not relevant to this. At least you are able to tell me that.

      report
    24. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Douglas Cotton

      Doug, I have already explained to you that ALL gas molecules exchange photons characteristic of the temperature of the gas. I daresay many others have explained this to you.

      You don't need the right to free speech, you need the right to free education.

      report
  10. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    If warmer is so bad, why do people prefer to live in the tropics rather than the polar regions?

    I expect a chart of population density versus distance from the equator (normalised for land area proportion of total area) would show that people prefer warmer rather than colder climates. I expect it would also show that all life prefers warmer rather than colder climates. Can anyone point me to such a chart?

    I've seen these three charts but they do not show quite what I would like to see:

    Average…

    Read more
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Peter Lang

      My hypothesis is that people prefer warmer to colder. It is demonstrated by population density versus mean surface temperature. There is lower population density in the polar regions than in the tropics. This shows population density versus latitude.
      www.bit.ly/tyN02Y

      I accept there is little change in population density between latitudes 30N and 30S but there is also little difference in mean surface temp between these latitudes either.
      http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Temperature_versus_Latitude_png

      report
    2. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      My hypothesis is that people are terrestrial, rather than marine, creatures.

      report
  11. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    Half the time those who do not accept climate science claim the world is not warming.

    At other times they claim warming may be beneficial.

    Regarding whether the world is warming:

    WASHINGTON – A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly. The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by…

    Read more
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      When Alarmists (including academics) don't want to answer the question they revert to their standard response "oh, he's just a denier".

      report
  12. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    P.S.

    Note Barry Brook's article in BraveNewClimate:
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/11/06/depressing-climate-trends/

    "Depressing climate-related trends – but who gets it?"

    "I saw two particularly depressing trend lines this week. Both were confronting enough to make me stop, sit back and just contemplate. It was not as though these came as a great surprise — I’d been following these data for years. But for some reason, the seriousness of them really struck home like never before."

    "The first…

    Read more
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      What is the consequence of a little warming? It seems no one wants to deal with what is important.

      Second question, why cherry pick northern se ice. We know the hemispheres oscilate temperatures and climate. So why don't you avoid the charge of cherry picking and talk about total ice. What is happening to total ice, and what is the consequence (with all pluses and minuses of a little warming properly considered)?

      report
  13. Gideon Polya

    Sessional Lecturer in Biochemistry for Agricultural Science at La Trobe University

    Excellent and sobering article by ANU paleoclimate and earth scientist Dr Andrew Glikson.

    The USA is a world leading annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter but is refusing to make required cuts in GHG pollution.

    In 2009 the WBGU, which advises the German Government on climate change, estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature rise (EU policy; would you board a plane with a 25% chance of crashing?) the world can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon…

    Read more
    1. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Gideon Polya

      "The USA is a world leading annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter but is refusing to make required cuts in GHG pollution."

      The USA wants to be rewarded for previous bad behavior, i.e. they already have a high carbon pollution level and they think this justifies an ongoing high carbon pollution level that is in proportion to the existing high carbon pollution level.

      report
  14. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    "LITTLE WARMING"

    "What is the consequence of a little warming? It seems no one wants to deal with what is important. Second question, why cherry pick northern se ice. We know the hemispheres oscilate temperatures and climate. So why don't you avoid the charge of cherry picking and talk about total ice. What is happening to total ice, and what is the consequence (with all pluses and minuses of a little warming properly considered)?" (comment by Lang above)

    The "Litle warming", currently translated…

    Read more
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      This does not answer my question. What I am asking is:

      1. What is the trend of the total of the ice mass at both poles (increasing, decreasing, by how much, is it significant)? (by the way, I don’t know the answer to this question; my questions in not rhetorical).

      2. What is the net consequence of a little warming (all pluses and minuses)? What I really want to know is what are the costs and benefits of a little warming (about 1%) in terms that can be used in the sort of analysis described…

      Read more
    2. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      The fact that Andrew chose not to answer my question, and instead write another rant about "deniers" (see new comment down-thread and my response to it), suggests to me that, perhaps, total ice mass is not changing much, or perhaps it is even increasing.

      report
    3. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Andrew, you said:

      While I am waiting for a direct answer to my questions, I'll make this comment on your last reply to my questions.

      The "Litle warming", currently translated into 4-5 degrees Celsius in both north and south polar regions http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/) , effects the doubling of ice melt every 5 to 10 years (Rignot and Velicogna, 2011 - http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-09.shtml), translated into meters-scale sea level rise and flooding of the world's coastal…

      Read more
    4. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Peter, the following answers to the 'specific' questions above set out some, but not all, the consequences of atmospheric [CO2] remaining above ~350 ppm for several more decades.

      1. What is the trend of the total of the ice mass at both poles (increasing, decreasing, by how much, is it significant)?

      Arctic: absolute trend is of decreasing ice mass, both ocean and terrestrial. This trend is much more pronounced over the ocean, consistent with the idea that the oceans transfer heat from low to high…

      Read more
    5. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      David Arthur said:

      “There is no point being alarmed about any of this, but there is a point to taking action at our earliest convenience to not further exacerbate these processes.”

      There is no point taking action that will not address the problem but will seriously damage economies. The policies advocated by the Left and the Alarmists (mostly the same people and groups) will seriously damage our economies but will not change global emissions or the climate.

      The economic consequences, and therefore…

      Read more
    6. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      "... meters-scale sea level rise”. You (addressing Prof Glikson, I assume) do not give a date by which you expect that to occur, so [Peter Lang] presume(s) you mean by 2100. However, AR4’s projection was about 30 cm (most likely) ..."

      AR4's projection considered only thermal expansion. Terrestrial icemelt was not considered, perhaps because research was, at that stage, considered to not be sufficiently progressed.

      I don't recall seeing any suggestion that the Opera House would be inundated by 2010, and I've been paying some attention to this for the last three decades. Are you thinking of Peter Weir's film "The LAst Wave"?

      report
    7. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      I guess you've been paying attention to only what you want to hear see and read.

      report
    8. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Based on the comment to which this reply is made, I assume the author considers cap-and-trade schemes, indeed the international architecture under the UNFCC to be an economically sub-optimal way of addressing climate change.

      Elsewhere on this page, I summarise what I consider an economically rational taxation regime that guides market forces and technological innovation toward the goal of removing fossil fuel use from the economy, namely phasing in the substitution of a consumption tax on carbon in fossil fuel for all other taxes. Innovators and entrepreneurs will find, develop and implement the optimum zero carbon emission techniques to maintain our economy.

      As and when fossil carbon use is priced out of the economy, "normal" taxation can be phased back in.

      report
    9. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      At least the commentators have got to the point of acknowledging that anthropogenic climate change is real. The next struggle is to get them to understand that we would be prudent to do something about it, that we can do something about it (decarbonise our economies), and that it won't be at all expensive.

      report
    10. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      David Arthur,

      Can’t you understand you are repeating Alarmist’s mantra. I realise that you and Andrew Glikson and many other are totally convinced by what you say. But your conviction comes across like that of religious zealots. I wouldn’t trust anything you say. I’d trust Andrew on the pure geology, but not on the way he spins it to support his beliefs.

      Alarmists have been spinning the same material you are regurgitating for years. Do you think we haven’t heard it and read it many times…

      Read more
    11. John Chapman

      At large

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Mr Lang. Kindly go away and read up the report by the US National Academies last May, on Climate Choices. That body id USA's top professional organisation. Their findings are that carbon pricing (economic solution) is the preferred major or broad measure for addressing greenhouse emissions.

      report
    12. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      A typical Leftist approach: you think more rules regulations and taxes are what is needed. Business is evil. We must redistribute wealth.

      I explained in another post why raising the cost of electricity in developed countries will not reduce global emissions. Did you read it? If you did, clearly you haven’t understood it.

      What is needed is removal of the mass of distorting rules regulations, taxes and incentives that are preventing least cost electricity generation. This mass of rules regulations taxes and incentives have been imposed by 50 years of anti-nuclear, pro renewables and belief that market intervention by wise politicians, bureaucrats and instructed by environmental NGOs is the best solution.

      report
    13. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Chapman

      John C, kindly go away and read what is happening in the real world. Carbon pricing that does not achieve the assumptions used in the idealists’ analyses will not reduce global emissions. Until the world can implement an economically efficient, international mechanism, carbon pricing in countries like Australia will not reduce global emissions. But it will damage Australia's economy and will make us less able to implement appropriate policies in the future.

      report
    14. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to John Chapman

      Mr C,

      For as long as the Left promote high cost, economically damaging polices (such as promoting renewable energy and blocking low cost nuclear), thieir agenda is selfe defeating. It is also hypocrical and reeks of socialism and wealth redistribution. It would be unwise to support such policies.

      report
    15. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      The taxation changes that I suggest are precisely the "removal of the mass of distorting rules regulations, taxes and incentives that are preventing least cost electricity generation"; to the extent that electricity generation costs may increase in some sectors, bear in mind that the removal of other taxes facilitates meeting any such costs.

      As such, the description "typical Leftist approach" does not apply.

      report
    16. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Where carbon pricing is used to replace other taes, there will be no adverse economic consequences.

      For overseas trade, the operation of the GST (zero rating of exports, border adjustment taxes for imports) provides sufficient adjustment for trade to proceed. Further, because the carbon emissions of shipping goods to Australia would be subject to the border adjustment tax, a net benefit to manufacturing goods in Australia starts to emerge as the rate of carbon tax increases, ie no need to 'compensate' trade-exposed industries.

      report
    17. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      David Arthur,

      You have completely missed the point. Your answer demonstrates you do not understand what "removal of the mass of distorting rules regulations, taxes and incentives that are preventing least cost electricity generation" means.

      For example, you did not mention how you would remove the mandatory renewable energy targets, renewable energy certificates, subsidies for renewable energy, subsidies and incentives for researchers to research renewable energy (as opposed to low cost energy…

      Read more
    18. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Mr Lang, while it is true that I did not mention HOW I would "remove the mandatory renewable energy targets, renewable energy certificates, subsidies for renewable energy, subsidies and incentives for researchers to research renewable energy (as opposed to low cost energy), the bans on uranium mining and nuclear power, the many regulations and policies that tell investors that investing in nuclear would be a high financial risk proposition ...", I did state that I WOULD remove them.

      Instead, I would…

      Read more
    19. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      I accept I may have misunderstood what you are advocating. I emphasise ‘may have’.

      Why is your headline advocacy for a carbon tax?

      Why isn’t your headline advocacy for removing all the impediments to low-cost, low-emission electricity generation as the first and most important step? This is what we must aim for if we want to make low emissions electricity generation cheaper than fossil fuels. It needs to be cheaper than fossil fuels if it is to be taken in the countries, which is where the majority of emissions growth will otherwise occur over the decades ahead.

      report
    20. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Mr Lang, any "headline advocacy" on my part is concerned with achieving an optimal transition of our economies away from fossil fuel dependency, due to the environmental constraint of climate change.

      I therefore leave it to others to campaign for cheap and plentiful electric power.

      I do not share the expectation that there will be major emissions growth in any nations in the next few decades.
      1. all nations are subject to the same climate constraint.
      2. technological developments (facilitated by the tax I propose) will allow low-cost, emission-free power generation.
      3. technological developments (facilitated by the tax I propose) will decrease future power requirements.
      4. If none of my optimistic expectations are met, then climate change itself will decrease future power requirements by decreasing population levels.

      report
    21. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      While you are advocating impracticable and unrealistic changes to the tax system, and while showing no real interest in trying to remove the many impedimets we have imposed to prevent low-cost, low-emissions electricity generation (the largest contribtor to CO2 emisisons and emissions growth), you'd hardly expect me to take this argument seriously.

      I have some fundamental concerns with the concept of taxing CO2 emissions.

      1. The anti-CO2 campaign is based on a populist, scaremongering campaign…

      Read more
    22. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Thanks Mr Lang, my responses to points raised share the numbers you allocate.

      1. You suggest that the "anti-CO2 campaign is based on a populist, scaremongering campaign." As we have discussed on several pages at this site, the reasons for eliminating industrial CO2 emissions are well-established by observation.

      2. As we have discussed on several pages at this site, the reasons for eliminating industrial CO2 emissions are well-established by observation. A campaign against H2O emissions seems…

      Read more
    23. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      Mr Arthur, (your attempt to be condescending is laughable), you continually ignore, miss or intentinally avoid the point. Therefore, the discussion goes nowhere. I've been advised by others that this is your method. Boring!

      report
    24. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Thank you, Mr Lang, (I assure you no condescension is intended on my part; how would you prefer to be addressed?).

      I have sought to address your remarks to the best of my ability. If, however, I miss your point, please alert me to my error.

      report
  15. Theo van den Berg

    IT consultant and trainee farmer

    It is a pitty, that again "Freedom of Expression" is making it hard for me to enjoy this conversation.

    How about going to the Grand Final and yelling "Footy is Crap" at the top of your voices and see if you get away with that ?

    Now that some money is being made with that Jobs thing, maybe it would be well spend on a moderator to limit posts to constructive comments only. Probably needs a "black list" too for certain individuals on certain topis. Yes, that is called censorship, but if you want to eat an egg, you need to break it.

    report
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Theo van den Berg

      "It is a pitty, that again "Freedom of Expression" is making it hard for me to enjoy this conversation."

      Do you prefer to stay inside the Left tent and discuss matters only with those of similar ideological persuasion.

      Why is it that the Left continually want to shut down discussion by those who do not accept your ideological and religious-like beliefs?

      report
  16. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    TC REARRANGES THE ORDER OF COMMENTS AFTER THEY ARE POSTED

    The order of the comments on TC threads is being changed after the comments are posted. The adjustment accentuates the left wing bias of the site. It also means that comments that build on previous comments are posted ahead of the previous comment and therefore, make little sense. For example, my first comment on this thread is now at the end of the thread and comments I posted after it, which build on it, are placed ahead of it. Another…

    Read more
  17. Theo van den Berg

    IT consultant and trainee farmer

    In line with my previous comment . . .

    The first graph in this article is the original hockey-stick graph made (in)-famous by Al Gore. Since then, we have been quibling about the colours of the lines and the size of the font, but it clearly shows that something different seems to be happening. If that graph was about the economy, most would agree that we seem to have avoided the next recession.

    report
  18. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    The "method" those who do not accept climate science follow is to "discard" the IPCC reports (based on the work of hundreds of peer-review published scientists) and "discard" leading climate scientists (Hansen, Schellnhuber, Rahmstorf, Ternberth) as "alarmist" or "scaremongers" despite the fact their warnings are based on the best avaialble evidence and the basic laws of physics and chemistry.

    Would they "discard" as alarmist" those who warned about the ozone hole, acid rain, tobacco smoking, HIV/AIDS…

    Read more
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      Andrew,

      You continue to avoid the questions and instead run the diversionary argument that questions you don’t like to answer are from Deniers”

      "The "method" those who do not accept climate science follow is to "discard" the IPCC reports (based on the work of hundreds of peer-review published scientists) …”

      The problem with the IPCC is that it is a political body:
      http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf

      This http://tome22.info/IAC-Report/IAC-Report-Overview-Short.html categorises and summarises the findings of the IAC review of the IPCC’s processes and procedures by:
      • Political interference
      • Bias
      • Uncertainty
      • Conflict of Interest
      • Management

      This http://accessipcc.com/index.html shows you that many of the citations in AR4 are to non peer reviewed reports. The number of citations to non peer reviewed material are:
      WG1 = 1067
      WG2 = 3874
      WG3 = 3204

      report
  19. Peter Lang

    Retired geologist and engineer

    LIFE THRIVES WHEN WARMER, STRUGGLES WHEN COLDER

    PEOPLE PREFER WARMER TO COLDER:

    I've just done a very simple plot of population density versus average surface temperature at sea level. The chart show that people prefer warmer to colder;
    y = 40.548e0.0302x
    R2 = 0.0148

    SO WHAT IS SO BAD ABOUT A LITTLE WARMING?

    We'll adapt. Most life will adapt (over centuries). Most life will thrive, as it did in the warmer times in the past.

    report
    1. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Peter Lang

      A few corrections and some policy implications:

      1. This was intended to have a smiley face

      2. y = 40.548e^0.0302x

      3. R2 = 0.0148 (Yea, Yea, Yea, I know)

      4. I'm not advocating we do nothing. I am suggesting the Alarmists stop exaggerating, stop scaremongering, stop the alarmist approach. It doesn't work. The backlash will be enormous. It’s already begun.

      4. The focus should be on economically rational solutions. The bulk of emissions growth over the decades ahead, on a Business-as-Usual…

      Read more
    2. David Arthur

      resistance gnome

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Economically rational solutions? Here's one.

      Over a decade or two, phase out all existing taxes.

      Replace them with a consumption tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels. Innovators and entrepreneurs will find, develop and implement the optimum zero carbon emission techniques to maintain our economy.

      As and when fossil carbon use is priced out of the economy, "normal" taxation can be phased back in.

      report
    3. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to David Arthur

      Tell Julia. She can then set an example for the world to follow - as she did for Durban. That worked well didn't it eh?

      report
    4. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Peter Lang

      "That worked well didn't it eh?"

      Yes, I'm sure hypocrisy would have worked better.

      report
    5. Peter Lang

      Retired geologist and engineer

      In reply to Chris O'Neill

      By hypocracy are you referring to the hypocricy of demanding CO2 CO2 emissions be cut while at the same time demanding that nuclear not be allowed to be part of the solution?

      report
    6. Douglas Cotton

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Lang

      Higher population? Makes sense - it's more cosy in bed when warmer.

      report
    7. Chris O'Neill

      Victim of Tony Abbotts Great Big New Tax

      In reply to Peter Lang

      No, the hypocrites we would have been telling lesser GHG emitters to reduce their emissions while we did hardly anything.

      But I'm not surprised you didn't get the point.

      report