CO2 Taxation Australia

hmm, not to many deny something has to be done about our planet, but this tax hasn't got much to do with that- it never did. australia is seen as easy pickings

i'm not in charge and i don't know the answer, but selling out australia is not the answer imo. i do think we need more direct action then just taxing and being used.
one world goverment is where its heading

do you have any ideas other than

.. other than...??

You've got no idea and don't know but you don't want to do this. You want to do something else but you don't know what. Except that if something else is done then you probably won't want to do that either. Is that the story?

koozoo news???? more like koozoo bias report.

^^^^

So you're saying if a tax is introduced to help stop sea levels rising then that's a conspiracy to take over the world.

But if a tax isn't introduced and sea levels rise then that's a conspiracy to take over the world.

In other words:

If you can't understand stuff, just make **** up and make like you do.

Geez that facepalm smiley would get a workout today if we had one....

To reduce the sea level rise, dig a canal from the Mediterranean sea to the Dead Sea and use the flow of water to make electricity. I just wonder how much evaporation (L/hour) would occur? Could we fill it just to keep it at the same level or a small raise, with the production of electricity used to produce hydrogen that could be exported easily making up for the ever diminishing crude oil stock? No one thought about it? Maybe too expensive or politically unstable area?

1.- I completely accept that Earth without multi atom gases would be ~255 K
2.- How do you get 480 * 10% * 3.618% = 1.411?

=============
3.- Anyway using your arbitrary 480w we get black body (480 / 5.67*10^-8)^ 0.25 = 30.18C

Now with your arbitrary 481.411w (481.411 / 5.67*10^-8)^ 0.25 = 30.40c

So 0.2c after 20 years > not accounting for CO2 effective saturation which basically says there is almost no CO2 greenhouse effect after 300ppm you get 0.2c increase.

Absorption rates aren't even linear (www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm).

Now let's take some real figures
Year = 2009
C02 = 387 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere)
CO2 % warming effect = 3.618... I have an issue with this as I don't know what 387ppm really represents, and you have the same problem.
Global Temp = 14.46?C (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13)
Temp = (388 / 5.67*10^-8) ^ .25 = 287.61500 kelvin = 14.46500 Celsius

With your 10% and linear effect
388 * 10% * 3.618% = 389.40; (389.40 / 5.67*10^-8) ^ .25 = 287.875k = 14.72500C

Applying the same logic to the pre IR of 288ppm or a %0.908 reduction of overall effect (0.75c) which doesn't correlate with readings.

use the 255K zero-greenhouse gas data point, where there is zero CO2, as a data point, and fit the other points to a smooth curve. To maximize the accuracy of the estimate, we will only use global CO2 and temperature values between 1900 and 2000 (lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html), about which there is relatively little dispute, and ignore estimates of prehistoric values, which could be more affected by changes in solar flux and other factors. This gives a total of 102 data points. These points are shown in blue in the figure below.

Including the CO2 = 0 data point severely constrains the shape of the curve (and, interestingly, effectively rules out any sort of hockey stick-shaped curve). It is also clear that some sort of monotonically-increasing curve, and not a straight line, has to be used. The best fit was obtained with a hyperbola. If the 102 data points are fitted to a hyperbola, we obtain 288.92 ?0.27K (?1 SD) for 736 ppm CO2 (red line).

The present-day value is taken as the average of the global mean temperatures between 1980 and 2000, or 287.17K. If the above estimate is correct, this means that the temperature would increase by 1.76 ?0.27?C above the present-day value when CO2 levels double their present levels. This is very close to the 1.85?C calculated above.

Stated differently, doubling CO2 from its pre-industrial value would increase the temperature about 1.2 degrees Celsius.

However, there is a problem with this method. The 255K data point is not just zero CO2, it is zero water vapor as well. In reality, there would always be some water vapor present, even if there were no CO2. This means that the actual temperature for zero CO2 would be higher than 255K, which would change the shape of the curve. For example, if the CO2=0 value was 271 (halfway between 255 and the current temperature), the prediction changes to 288.55K, or about a 1.39 degree increase for doubling of CO2. This can be seen in the blue curve (see enlarged graph below). The result is not much different than the 1.76, but the important point is that as the estimates become more realistic, the predicted temperature does not increase, but decreases slightly.



Fitting other curves to these data points gives similar results. For example, Ted Ladewski suggested deriving an exponential curve from Beer's Law. Although there are obvious problems involved in applying Beer's Law quantitatively to a transparent medium as complex as the atmosphere (as he discusses in greater detail on his website, mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/atmrad.htm#Spec), the equation he recommends is:

where AIo and k are constants, C is the CO2 concentration, and T is temperature. (This is also discussed in www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWnonlinear.htm )

Fitting the data to this equation, as shown in the brown curve in the figure above, gives the much lower value of 287.62?0.07 K (?1 SD), or 0.46?0.08 ?C increase above the 1980-2000 mean for a doubling of CO2 from current values. And this is still theoretical and hotley disputed by the "The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory of Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi and Prof. JAMES R. BARRANTE

Although extrapolating beyond the ends of the data, as is done here and as is done with climate models, is hazardous, it's clear that both of these curves are significantly lower than a straight linear estimate. The hyperbola is probably closest to the actual value, because it makes the fewest assumptions about the underlying physical processes. In any case, both estimates should be regarded as upper limits because, as mentioned above, they assume that CO2 is the root cause of the observed changes in temperature.

was looking for that graph, says that co2 is the effect of temp increase i think!

Ha, good on ya! Very impressive, although we're pretty much back to arguing small details.
We at least agree that temperatures will rise, we just disagree on the amount of the effect.

Those graphs are all pretty much in the realm of

y = x ^ .25

Which matches the F = &sigma T4 equation I was using. So yes, I won't argue the idea of 'diminishing' returns although the axis of the graphs are all set to try and make changes to current levels seem small (I'm sure you'd argue likewise if I changed the axis to suit my argument however)

(Neither of our workings reflects any feedback mechanisms (positive or negative) and both make the assumption that CO2 levels will increase at a linear rate of 2ppm/year (it was 0.99ppm/year a few decades ago))

I have to admit that this was just taken on faith, it didn't seem to have any explanation behind it.



The equations are for a body in equilibrium, the idea is that it make take years for the Earth to reach a predicted temperature. The doom and gloom scientists state that any effect from the last x years is still yet to finish occuring. i.e. the current temperature doesn't actually reflect the equilibrium temperature predicted by current levels of C02.



You've worked backwards to find a Heatflux value using that equation using the current temperature, but this assumes the Earth is a black body. I assumed it wasn't and therefore a higher Heatflux is used even if this means it generates a higher temperature, because we're only interested in temperature changes (480 pulled off a .Edu site somewhere)



I have to admit that I don't follow this particular argument. It makes no sense to me, maybe I'm just a bit slow today.


Can I suggest a truce? It's clear that we can both pull arguments out, we're never going to agree and I don't fancy replicating the last 40 years of climate analysis on the pages of Seabreeze just to try and prove a point.
I'm happy I've learnt some stuff and I imagine you have too.

Anyway, I won't be pushing for the Formula 1 car equation that you promised ;)

@Trant: Truth is I still don't have a working model... my past efforts have concentrated on the actual amount of energy hitting the entire Earth and trying to calculate what effect CO2 would which all seemed to indicate it would be negligible. Oceans and earth need a lot of energy to heat up.

I still think the effect is negligible, but I can't prove to what extent and it seems science can't either as all the thus far created models fail.

I don't think imposing a CO2 tax will help the planet, and I think it will hurt us... not so much economically but by empowering a bureaucracy, letting people think they're helping the planet when they're having no effect and on the contrary keeping the people responsible for raping the planet in power.

Why? Do you quote that one without attributing it as well? Tsk!

Actually he did attribute his quote.

And as nuts as you are with the conspiracy angle you've earned my respect for a thorough, thought provoking dialogue with Trant (youtoo Trant).

Most arguments I've seen... actually all of them, have been along the lines of "It was hotter when I was a kid, I remember." or "They haven't considered such and such because they haven't got the time and resources like I (apparently) do." or "Juliar, see what a wordsmith I am? JuLIAR. Get it?" It's pretty hard to listen to or give any respect to.

Where's that? I've had another look and still can't see it... FS you have my apology if I've missed it and miscalled it.

Or for us simpletons:

eq = old power:weight - power:weight (+dust)

eq = (p/w) - (p/(w+d))

eq = (750/690) - (750/(690+0.3)) = -0.0004723844075380085

Do as we told you Juliar.