The carbon tax explained

Question 4. What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

(No reference for their figure- doesn't mean it isn't true, just poor form!)

This figure varies depending on whether you are measuring our actual output in Australia or include what we ship overseas. I've heard it suggested that we are the highest contributors per capita (a few years ago - http://www.physorg.com/news171889925.html and
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/11/we_win_australi.php
http://www.maplecroft.com/about/news/australia_overtakes_usa_as_top_polluter_09.html
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita )

others have us in or just outside the top 10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
http://carma.org/dig/show/world+country

"1% of the 0.001% of man-made CO2. As a decimal it is an insignificant 0.00001% of the air. That’s one, one-hundredth thousandth of the air. That is what all the fuss is about! That’s one CO2 molecule from Australia in every 9,000,000 molecules of air. It has absolutely no affect at all."

In science you need references to demonstrate evidence - if it is 1% and humans are responsible for about 30% - it's not so insignificant. Go back to the carbon monoxide example to see that little numbers can matter!

Question 5. Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Depends on definition (In US they were trying to get it classed as a pollutant so the EPA could act on global warming).

"CO2 is a harmless, trace gas. It is as necessary for life – just as oxygen and nitrogen are. It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless. It is in no way a pollutant."

Carbon monoxide is a toxic gas, but, being colorless, odorless, tasteless, and non-irritating - why do any of these properties determine whether or not it is a pollutant?

These are all irrelevant points - it's natural and needed for life? - so what, it's all about concentration. The sun is natural and necessary, but you can get too much. Salt it natural and vital - too much salt kills, too much salt in water - salinity problems being faced in some parts of Australia.

"Calling CO2 a ‘pollutant’ leads many to wrongly think of it as black, grey or white smoke. Because the media deceitfully show white or grey ‘smoke’ coming out of power station cooling towers, most think this is CO2. It is not: it’s just steam (water vapour) condensing in the air."

Poor use by media doesn't disprove the science!

" CO2 is invisible: just breathe out and see. Look at it bubbling out of your soft drinks, beer or sparkling wine. No one considers that a pollutant – because it’s not.
CO2 in its frozen state is commonly known as dry ice. It is used in camping eskys, in medical treatments and science experiments. No one considers that a pollutant either."

Again, I'll take a quote from early in your article - " the vast bulk of the population have very little knowledge of science so they find it impossible to make judgements about even basic scientific issues let alone ones as complex as climate."

" CO2 is emitted from all plants"

I thought they took it in and put out oxygen??? Hey, they may emit some? - so what, some plants are poisonous - the argument in a non-sequitor!

"Huge quantities of CO2 are dissolved naturally in the ocean and released from the warm surface. This is not considered a pollutant either."

Remember the ocean soaks up carbon dioxide and is becoming more acidic because of increasing CO2, bleaching coral etc!

The question isn't whether or not it is a pollutant (except in the US re EPA trying to get jurisdiction ), the question is whether it's increased concentration leads to global warming!

Your definition of pollutant, will determine whether or not it fits the bill. As I suggest, is arbitrary and has no bearing on the science!

While putting together my critique of the "answers" to question 6, I came across this example and thought that it was a good demonstration on the 'small numbers myth' that was being spun in previous questions. I find it strange that an amateur astronomer wasn't aware of the problems that most people have dealing with and understanding extremely large and extremely small numbers (eg. millions of light years), so I came up with this example (a phenomenon which he casts doubt on anyway) as a two part quiz. Maybe everyone can play along?

The Ozone Layer (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer - references can also be found there)

The ozone layer is a layer in Earth's atmosphere which contains relatively high concentrations of ozone (O3). This layer absorbs 97–99% of the Sun's high frequency ultraviolet light, which is damaging to life on Earth.[1] It is mainly located in the lower portion of the stratosphere from approximately 13 to 40 kilometres (8.1 to 25 mi) above Earth, though the thickness varies seasonally and geographically.[2]

1. What is the concentration of ozone molecules in the ozone layer (in parts per million)?

2. What is the concentration of Chlorine molecules in the ozone layer that is depleting it (in similar units as above)? If you can find data on the sub-types of chlorine molecules that are man made (vs naturally occurring) - you get bonus marks!

Consider the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere previously mentioned and how good a job this 'layer' does of blocking so much UV light when fully functioning.

 

It is right that there is no conclusive proof that human activity is changing the climate. There is lots of hypothese, theory, opinion and belief out there, based on what appears to be correlations between between human activity and global temperature. But we also cannot deny there is quite a lot of data that does not support the human element and even does not support that climate change is happening at all. We also cannot deny that the earths climate has always changed through hot and cold cycles without any help from us.
It is pertinent that critics of climate change and human induced climate change are mostly scientists that are not relient on government money and the most strident supporters are heavily government funded.
Personaly I think human activity is having some effect on the earths climate, how much I couldn't quess. I think the destruction of so much of the worlds forests in such a short time is probably having far more effect than burning fossil fuels. One thing is certain, Joooliars carbon tax will have no effect whatsoever.

 

LOL!

that is just so good it had to be quoted

 

You are right. We cannot deny that. Because you have just made a stupid claim with nothing to support it.

Any time you are ready to show us this "quite a lot of data that does not support the human element and even does not support that climate change is happening at all"

Please go ahead.

 

Nor is there any conclusive proof that gravity exists. I hope you have something nice and heavy to hold onto so you don't go randomly flying off into space

 

He's right. It's not conclusive, it's 95%.

Perhaps the 5% left is 'conclusive' proof that humans have nothing to do with it. Conclusive enough for Stormy anyway.

 

So go and jump off a building. No? why not Bugs?

 

The point is there is no such thing as "scientific proof". I would have thought that some one that claimed:

may have been aware of that.

A theory may be disproved. But not proven.


Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science....The knowledge that there is no such thing as a scientific proof should give you a very easy way to tell real scientists from hacks and wannabes. Real scientists never use the words “scientific proofs,” because they know no such thing exists. Anyone who uses the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science is not a real scientist.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof


For "creationists and other critics of evolution" below - just substitute "climate change deniers". They are both the same type of animal.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

Because I understand gravitational theory says that two bodies exert a force on each other proportional to their masses and this theory has never been disproven, and that the overwhelming empirical evidence suggests that I would accelerate towards the earth at about 9.8m/m/s and hurt myself

Just as I understand that the standing theory of AGW tells us that increasing the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gasses will cause more heat to be re-readiated back to the earth's surface and that overwhelming empirical evidence is showing us that this is happening and human emissions are causing the planet to warm

Now, you were going to show us this:
"quite a lot of data that does not support the human element and even does not support that climate change is happening at all"

We are waiting.

 

Exactly like talking to Abbott and his blind followers.

The carbon tax issue in Australia has nothing to do with carbon and it's effects at all. It's just politics with two sides arguing, both believing they are right.


But there is one ntotally convincinvg issue/fact or whatever you want to call it in all this. That is, if no one does anything about carbon we will see the end of the human species. If we do act we may achieve rescue.

Doing something in Australia is not the issue globally as related to carbon content.

It is an economic issue which, if we don't act now, will suddenlt take all our markets away and leave us with huge prices as much of the rest of the world is acting, or has already done so a few years ago. Even India imposed a small carbon tax over 2 years ago.

Remember John Howard's famous words? "As far as I am concerned we will go on mining coal forever". That's where Abbott got his words from, the usual place, Howard. Even though Howard changed his mind, Abbott didn't and can't. As it's crap.

 

So why won't these gasses cause more heat to be "re-readiated" back into the atmosphere, thus causing cooling?

(serious question....)

 

Not true.

No reliable empirical evidence exists (it's guesswork at best).

Oh, and say 'Hi' to Elvis next time you see him

 

Exactly like Gillard and her blind followers.



Easy....

 

The infrared radiation absorbed by the greenhouse gasses is re-emitted in all directions - some going into space, some going back to earth. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses simply causes more infrared radiation to be absorbed and re-emitted - resulting in a net increase in the amount of heat radiated back to earth



The greenhouse gasses are essentially transparent to the incoming radiation from the sun. The only thing which may cause "cooling" would be an increase in particulate matter in the atmosphere which may decrease the amount of incoming radiation from the sun or a decrease in the actual amount of radiation received from the sun

 

No - empirical evidence does exist and it is considerable.

It exists in the simple fact that warming of the earth is occurring and can be measured, both directly on the earth's surface, by satellite measurement and by proxy measures such as observable deglaciation and sea-level rise. And we can measure the amount of increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and identify that this increase is coming from anthropogenic sources.

We can also measure changes in the amount of longwave radiation being re-emitted from the atmosphere and outgoing longwave radiation and see that these are being impacted in exactly the same spectra in which energy is absorbed by the major greenhouse gasses.

 

You conveniently missed out a word from my post: 'reliable'.

"No reliable empirical evidence exists (it's guesswork at best)."

 

Incorrect: it's a theory, not a fact.

A theory increasingly challenged.

 

But that is ignoring incoming radiation reflected by green house gasses?

Is the suggestion that heat radiation only gets deflected by green house gasses going away from earth but not to it??

 

This is presicely my point.

None of us here know enough to have an informed, considered opinion. The scientific process says what it says. To disagree, without being part of that process, is generally folly. Maybe occasionally people outside the process will be right, and people in the process will be largely wrong - but they are small odds. Remember that when a scientific view changes, it changes through the process - through testing assumptions, peer review etc. Us choosing the 'weaker' argument while not knowing any better is simply a gamble.

 

Not funny.

LOL

 

Yes, that is correct.

Incoming radiation is mainly in the visible light and UV spectra. The greenhouse gasses are essentially tranparent to this. The earth absorbs this energy and re-emits it as heat - infrared radiation. This is the radiation that is absorbed by greenhouse gasses


The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 50% is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

 

Have you ACTUALLY read any papers or are you just parroting Alan Jones?

 

No - your theory will not be proven. You will have collected empirical evidence to support your theory - but not proven it.

Though in fact - you are actually only predicting a result - that is not actually a theory. It is more a law (in scientific terms). You could call it "Adultmale's Law of Bugalugs Plummetting". And so long as every time I jump off a building this happens - your Law will hold.

A theory would require some explanation of why the result is occurring

 

Theory - explanation, hypothesis, belief.
Hypothesis - proposal, possibility, guess.

 

If you want to use scientific terms - try to learn what they mean first:


Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.



http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemi...try.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm