CO2 Taxation Australia

Grandstanding

no, i asked for it i believe

Australia, under our Green-Labor-Independent dictatorship, will be deliberately undermining our own coal-fired electricity sector via the Government's no-mandate imposition of a carbon "X" scheme; we will then be buying some $3 Billion per annum worth of carbon dioxide credits from countries such as China and India; they will be able to sell us their UN-provided free carbon credits, while at the same time, buying our coal to burn in their UN-subsidised coal-fired power plants.

Explained: We pay for India to burn our coal in its power plants.

Carbon credits for India coal power plant stoke criticism
http://www.eco-business.com/news/carbon-credits-for-india-coal-%20power-plant-stoke-criticism/

Thanks to Australia's Coal, China and India to spew out 100 megatonnes of CO2
in 5 days - the approximate amount that Australia aims to save annually by 2020.
www.eai.in/club/users/amsapna/blogs/1791

Good Ideas FL

Did you just suggested to replace our National Anthem ??

good vibes in this song unlike Matilda

and lyrics easier to remember

just substitute YOU with WE and we could go in the world singing !!!

about our CARBON TAX CODE

btw there are no money on this world that we could buy us respect back
especially from two beneficiaries China and India mentioned above.

just imagine next time we strike a gold in future olympics
and we all sing

If I was Torpie I will jump back to water (deep under and stay there) for that precious moment

Mate I haven't got a clue what you're saying in any of your posts. I can't even begin to tie this into the topic. Can you explain?

Take what seriously?

Tell me about it!

@log man: OMG, dude you're really hard of reading.

I answered each one of those.
The picture Trant showed us, and you said explained the situation showed.

net in 240w
net out 240w

That means NO WARMING... don't you even understand the picture you say explains my question.

I don't know how to make you understand CO2 while theoretically a green house gas (cos my uncle uses to grow better tomatoes in his green house) causes SO little warming it's almost impossible to calculate.

Seriously do the math... no wait maybe that's too much to ask; google it. If you increased the amount of CO2 10 fold it would still cause ~ no warming. And that warming would be from terrestrial radiation.

I want Australia to have the best standard of living on Earth, I don't care about the other countries.. let them figure out their own ****.

I think we have a lot of areas we can focus on to achieve the ultimate standard of living and I really can't see how increasing our living costs, and losing some of our sovereignty to a bunch of socialist globalist is going to help us.

What's your angle?

Sorry so you mean the whole of the scientific world has forgotten something , some incredibly basic idea, something that only a misunderstood genius plumber from Woy Woy can possibly understand....... tell us oh genius misunderstood one

This may seem a bit wacko to some but I've often thought that to some point that climate warming may be caused by humans.... think about the sun shines on a black road in summer it becomes hot and then radiates that heat back out where as grass lands don't. So have we over time created things that radiate the heat back into the atmosphere (roads, house roofs, cars, concrete, etc,etc.... IE,Cities & Towns) rather just absorb it like nature does?
And to that point should people with black or dark color car be taxed higher than people with white cars?

Actually this video kind of proves my point.
They start with saying that people don't want to pay a tax => They go onto talking about how they're worried about where the money will go => Then they try and attack the science so they won't have to pay a tax.

This is the wrong way around.

We're coming from:
This is the science => we need to reduce emissions => what's the best way of doing that? => a market mechanism is proposed.

It's amazing how 2 people can watch the same thing and come up with different analysis.

I came up with:
They're trying to steal some money from you > here's their excuse > wait that doesn't make sense > who wants to rob you and what is it really for??

We're coming from:
We waste too much energy (lets stop sending stuff here there and everywhere) BRING THE JOBS HOME
>we need more energy, lets develop new sources
>CO2 isn't a big concern right now, lets address the other areas that degrade our quality of life.
>Fark your "market", it's a bunch of greedy financial institutions trying to figure out new ways to leech off us... my market is the people of Australia

Challenge accepted:

Current levels of CO2 in atmosphere is 391ppm : source en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Increase of CO2 per year is about 2ppm : source
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

CO2 is responsible for about 3.618% of Global Greenhouse effect : source
www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html (table 3)

Amount of sunlight hitting Earth is 240 Watts/m^2
(source : anywhere on the web)

The current greenhouse effect doubles this as radiation is absorbed by the greenhouse layer and re-emitted (of which 50% back to earth with each 'reflection')
source : www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html

Total energy hitting the Earth is about 480Watts/m^2

The simple equation for working out the temperature of a blackbody in equilibrium with a certain amount of heat loss is :
F = &sigma T^4

where F is heat flux
&sigma is the Stephen Boltsman constant (5.67*10^-8)
T is the temperature


Currently this would calculate the temperature as :

T = (F / &sigma) ^ .25
T = (480 / 5.67*10^-8) ^ .25
T = 302.9 Kelvin (which is about 29.75 centigrade)

After 20 years the concentraion of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase by 20 *2ppm = 40ppm (as above),
This is an increase of about 10%
So now the heat flux is increased by 480 * 10% * 3.618% = 1.411
So the total heat flux is 481.411

The new temperature (after achieving equilibrium) would be

T = (F / &sigma) ^ .25
T = (481.411 / 5.67*10^-8) ^ .25
T = 303.2 Kelvin (which is about 30.05 centigrade)
So even this simple model says an increase of .3 degrees after 20 years

After 50 years this becomes an increase of
T = (F / &sigma) ^ .25
T = (484.35 / 5.67*10^-8) ^ .25
T = 303.6 Kelvin (which is about 31 centigrade)


So my very simple model predicts an increase of .7 centigrade after 50 years.
This is assuming that we stay at the current level of CO2 emissions (which is not happening)

This also ignores the other greenhouse gasses, feedback systems, the Earth's albedo, cloud cover etc. etc.
obviously a real calculation would include more factors, I would imagine the most important being that any increase in temp will increase the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which is another greenhouse gas

This is a simple demonstration of
more CO2 = higher temperature.



Now I'm waiting for your dust / Formula 1 car calculation...