Carbon Tax

[gumpy]

From Wikipedia-
From 986 AD, Greenland's west coast was colonised by Icelanders and Norwegians in two settlements on fjords near the southwestern-most tip of the island.[SUP][9][/SUP] They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and eastern parts, and later with the Thule culture arriving from the north. Norse Greenlanders submitted to Norwegian rule in the 13th century, and the kingdom of Norway entered into a personal union with Denmark in 1380 and from 1397 was a part of the Kalmar Union.[SUP][10][/SUP]
The settlements, such as Brattahlíð, thrived for centuries but disappeared some time in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age.[SUP][11][/SUP] Interpretation of ice core and clam shell data suggests that between 800 and 1300 AD the regions around the fjords of southern Greenland experienced a relatively mild climate several degrees Celsius higher than usual in the North Atlantic,[SUP][12][/SUP] with trees and herbaceous plants growing and livestock being farmed. Barley was grown as a crop up to the 70th degree.[SUP][13][/SUP] What is verifiable is that the ice cores indicate Greenland has experienced dramatic temperature shifts many times over the past 100,000 years.[SUP][14][/SUP] Similarly the Norse Book

Alright - offically my care factor is 0 for Greenland's ice melting... Somone just bottle it and sell it.

 

[gumpy]

Over the last 450,000 years the max level of Methane was around 700 ppb:
File:Vostok 420ky 4curves insolation.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Methane is now around 2,000 ppb or about 3 times as high as it has been in 450,000 years.

Over the same 450,000 years, peak CO2 was, from the chart above, around 280 ppm. It is now 395 ppm or about a 50% increase.

Understand that Methane is 25 times the GHG as is CO2. So 2,000 ppb of Methane has the same GH effect as would 50,000 ppb or 50 ppm of CO2. So very small amounts of Methane can have a much bigger warming effect than can CO2.

Yeah I understand that Methane is a more potent GHG. It's why I asked.

Any data that goes futher back than 450,000? There must have been stages when methane was massively high before they got trapped in the ice.

Where did all the methane come from as well? was it from when earth formed or released when volcanoes went off or asteriods?

 

[connieguy]

Given that renewables can be scaled down to systems so that we can produce energy locally (where required), reduces T&D losses and less need to spend more $$s on T&D infrastructure (which is a much higher impact than the proposed carbon tax!).

Fully agree. What amazes me is the anti AGW doom forecasters preaching that a >A$0.02 / kWh increase in electricity prices will destroy Australia jobs, said nothing when the DBs (Distribution Businesses) got approval to spend ~A$40b to increase network capacity and put up electricity prices by A$0.10 to A$0.15 / kWh as a result.

As for sending jobs off shore due to higher energy costs from the Carbon Tax, Australian energy prices have always been much higher than in Asia. If energy costs were so much determinant to not sending jobs off shore, those jobs would have gone a long time ago.

Bottom line is the mines are in Australia. You can not move the mine off shore, so the mining jobs will stay here, Carbon Tax or not. In fact Australian mining jobs will increase as long as the world does not go into another monetary crisis, which it well may do.

As for me, my focus is on the rapidly melting ice cube, floating in the Arctic Sea, the Methane level in the air above it and the resultant rise in local temperatures.

 

[connieguy]

Yeah I understand that Methane is a more potent GHG. It's why I asked.

Any data that goes futher back than 450,000? There must have been stages when methane was massively high before they got trapped in the ice.

Where did all the methane come from as well? was it from when earth formed or released when volcanoes went off or asteriods?

I have nothing that goes back further than 450,000 year. That was only possible as the data came from deep ice cores.

Here is a good link to the Methane sources. Note that a lot is due to human activity:

Sources and Emissions | Methane | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Note the comment:

"Hydrates. Global emissions from methane hydrates are estimated to be around 2 to 9 Tg of methane per year. Methane hydrates are solid deposits composed of cages of water molecules that contain molecules of methane. The solids can be found deep underground in polar regions and in ocean sediments of the outer continental margin throughout the world. Methane can be released from the hydrates with changes in temperature, pressure, salt concentrations, and other factors. Overall, the amount of methane stored in these hydrates globally is estimated to be very large with the potential for large releases of methane if there are significant breakdowns in the stability of the deposits. Because of this large potential for emissions, there is much ongoing scientific research related to analyzing and predicting how changes in the ocean environment affect the stability of hydrates."

Methane in the atmosphere does not last very long (around 10 years) and will thus quickly drops away. The concern is the current concentration in Methane is above the Arctic,



so there must be a constant Methane release occurring there to maintain the current level at around 2,000 ppb or 3 times higher than in the 450,000 year ice core history. It is believed the release source is melting Methane Hydrates both in the permafrost and from beds at the bottom of the Arctic Sea.

Recently hundreds of plumes of Methane rising from the bottom of the Arctic Sea are starting to be detected:

As Arctic Ocean warms, megatonnes of methane bubble up - environment - 17 August 2009 - New Scientist



I'm not a doom sayer, I just observe the current data, but this is not looking good:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/methane-leak-permafrost-arctic.html

 

[connieguy]

This may help to understand why the current cold winters being experienced in the Northern Hemisphere are actually caused by warm conditions at the North Pole. Warm conditions due to AGW.

Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming : Discovery News

Overall the planet is warming.

 

[connieguy]

Wilkie backs carbon pricing scheme:

Wilkie backs carbon pricing scheme - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"The Government now has Mr Wilkie's vote, which is enough for the package to pass Parliament."

 

[drron]

This may help to understand why the current cold winters being experienced in the Northern Hemisphere are actually caused by warm conditions at the North Pole. Warm conditions due to AGW.

Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming : Discovery News

Overall the planet is warming.

But of course back in 2007 the IPCC said this would not happen.So now we have another explanation-doesn't really convince me that the science is beyond doubt.
We were told that the IPCC report was a consensus of leading climate scientists.They got it wrong then,so why should we believe them now.

 

[gumpy]

Wilkie backs carbon pricing scheme:

Wilkie backs carbon pricing scheme - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

"The Government now has Mr Wilkie's vote, which is enough for the package to pass Parliament."

Not good... there's an easier solution to this.

 

[connieguy]

But of course back in 2007 the IPCC said this would not happen.

I would be interested in reading this. Can you please provide the link or the exact wording the IPCC used? Thanks.

As for what to believe, you can believe that big ice cube trapped in the Arctic Sea is very rapidly losing mass / volume and that is being caused by the Arctic experiencing over twice the global averaged heating partly due to localized Methane being released from frozen stores in the tundra / permafrost and undersea beds.

In 2007 this amount of localized Methane release was not expected to happen. This whole process is a work in progress. No one can tell you what will happen in 10 years, let alone 50 or 100 years EXACTLY. What we do know is the AGW process is much more complex than originally thought, has complex positive feed back loops and that the process is happening much faster and at a higher level than expected.

From the currently observed changes, the IPCC did get it wrong. In almost every case the IPCC under estimated the complexity, speed and level of the changes. The current result are generally above, in both speed and level, their worst case version of what the IPCC modeled would happen.

No one predicted that the 2010 summer min Arctic Ice Cap volume would be 4,000 km^3, down from 18,000 km^3 in 1979. At that rate of summer min ice mass loss, ~450 km^3 / year, there will be virtually no ice in the Arctic during the summer of 2010.

I suggest by now you do have some idea what that will do to the release rate of Methane over the Arctic? Which, BTW, includes the Greenland ice sheet that could add 23 feet / 7 meters to world sea level if it melts.

So yes the IPCC did get it wrong, their numbers were too low and they did not totally understand a very complex system as well as they do today. So lets throw out the baby with the bath water and go totally blind into a world that is rapidly changing.

Now lets now all stick our heads in the sand, ignore the current evidence that is before your eyes, the IPCC projection, all the climate scientists and chant:

All Hail King Coal,
Long Live King Coal,

All Hail King Coal,
Long Live King Coal,

All Hail King Coal,
Long Live King Coal,

Excuse me while I spew.

 

[connieguy]

Not good... there's an easier solution to this.

New Nuclear plants will take ~15 years to come online. You can bet the assistance needed to build say 10 x 1 GW Nukes, to cater for increased demand from AGW and desal plants, will cost much more than A$0.023 / kWh. If we then want to replace all the thermal fossil fuel plants in Australia with Nukes, plan on building another 40 or so.

In 15 years that ice cube trapped in the Arctic Sea will probably have melted and there just might have another kind of crisis that those Nukes can't fix.

The fastest way to reduce CO2 emissions is by adopting mandatory energy conservation measures and building wind / solar renewable plants. 2 years and they are on line and reducing the load on the coal plants and cutting CO2 emissions. Sure they can't generate energy 24/7 but so what? Every MWh they generate is 1 less tonne of CO2 going into the atmosphere. As long as the cost of the renewable MWh is acceptable, as it will be, Australia wins.

Who is gonna cough? Coal miners that do not get to dig up and sell as much coal as they are at present and the coal based generators that do not get to sell as many kWhs of energy as they currently do. Hey funny that is where all the negativity is coming from. Amazing that! :shock:

 

[gumpy]

New Nuclear plants will take ~15 years to come online. You can bet the assistance needed to build say 10 x 1 GW Nukes, to cater for increased demand from AGW and desal plants, will cost much more than A$0.023 / kWh. If we then want to replace all the thermal fossil fuel plants in Australia with Nukes, plan on building another 40 or so.

In 15 years that ice cube trapped in the Arctic Sea will probably have melted and there just might have another kind of crisis that those Nukes can't fix.

The fastest way to reduce CO2 emissions is by adopting mandatory energy conservation measures and building wind / solar renewable plants. 2 years and they are on line and reducing the load on the coal plants and cutting CO2 emissions. Sure they can't generate energy 24/7 but so what? Every MWh they generate is 1 less tonne of CO2 going into the atmosphere. As long as the cost of the renewable MWh is acceptable, as it will be, Australia wins.

Who is gonna cough? Coal miners that do not get to dig up and sell as much coal as they are at present and the coal based generators that do not get to sell as many kWhs of energy as they currently do. Hey funny that is where all the negativity is coming from. Amazing that! :shock:

Well of course they're going to cough it's their jobs on the line. You'd do the same if they introduced something that made flying twice as expensive... thankfully this new system won't.

I agree with energy conservation measures.

I guess what you're missing from my end is Australia stopping all GHG producing activity will not prevent the methane coming out. We need the big countries to do something. And if they on charge the costs fine. It'd effectively be a tax for the world.

We need to get onto Nuclear ASAP, I thought they took 20 years to build. But at 15 years we need to start now... there is no way wind and solar can sustain the big cities.

 

[Oneworldplus2]

What about this chart???

View attachment 2921

 

[drron]

Well yes it did get it wrong.Your 7 metres comes from the IPCC report for rise in ocean level.They also said that the Greenland ice cap was loosing ice at 600 cubic km per year.Yet the scientists in NASA said the loss was 200 cubic KM per year and that by 2100 the contribution to sea level rise from melting of the greenland ice cap would be 4cm-yes cm not m.
Of interest they were using satellite data and the measurements of ice loss varied from 40 to 200 cubic km depending on how the data was processed.Yes your measurements that prove calamity can give widely varying results depending on process.

From the IPCC report conclusions-

[TD="class: tindex t1111"]

Over most land areas, warmer and fewer cold days and nights, warmer and more frequent hot days and nights [/TD]
[TD="class: tindex t1111"]Virtually certain[SUP]b [/SUP] [/TD]

 

[connieguy]

Well of course they're going to cough it's their jobs on the line. You'd do the same if they introduced something that made flying twice as expensive... thankfully this new system won't.

I agree with energy conservation measures.

I guess what you're missing from my end is Australia stopping all GHG producing activity will not prevent the methane coming out. We need the big countries to do something. And if they on charge the costs fine. It'd effectively be a tax for the world.

We need to get onto Nuclear ASAP, I thought they took 20 years to build. But at 15 years we need to start now... there is no way wind and solar can sustain the big cities.

A good efficient combined cycle gas plant will only produce about 30% the CO2 as will a coal plant. Gas is the best short term plan with as much wind and solar as the grid can handle as long as they generate at A$0.06 / kWh. Taken together, they can cause a very significant reduction in coal power plant CO2 emissions. But we must not build any more coal plants and please no talk about geosequestration of the CO2 from a coal plant. Pipe dream stuff.

As for that melting ice cube, yup China, India and the US need to kick their gas and renewable plant plans into high gear. We have say 10 years until that ice cube melts away during the Arctic summer and we may then have another very much different problem as we can't suck the Methane out of the atmosphere and refreeze it, even if we do manage to get the ice cube to grow in volume.

 

[connieguy]

Interesting statement by the coal miners union national president:
Swan pledges carbon compo for some miners - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

==========
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union's national president for mining and energy, Tony Maher, says the Coal Association's job loss predictions are wrong.

"Well, if it was true they would get our support. That is the truth of it," he said.

"For 100 years the unions have fought for jobs in this country. We've got the credibility on that. Big business doesn't. They are just trying to seal their profits. That is all it is about."

Mr Maher says the industry can easily cope with the increased costs of a carbon tax.

"They make $1 million per mine worker in profits, not in revenue, in profits," he said.

"They have a margin above their costs which is extraordinary. Coal prices have increased 75 per cent since two years ago."
==========

A$1 million profit per mine worker? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

 

[connieguy]

Well yes it did get it wrong.Your 7 metres comes from the IPCC report for rise in ocean level.They also said that the Greenland ice cap was loosing ice at 600 cubic km per year.Yet the scientists in NASA said the loss was 200 cubic KM per year and that by 2100 the contribution to sea level rise from melting of the greenland ice cap would be 4cm-yes cm not m.
Of interest they were using satellite data and the measurements of ice loss varied from 40 to 200 cubic km depending on how the data was processed.Yes your measurements that prove calamity can give widely varying results depending on process.

From the IPCC report conclusions-

I have never commented on ice loss in Greenland and only briefly on sea level increase as related to what would happen if all the Greenland ice sheet melted. The 7 meter number is widely used if all the Greenland ice sheet melts. Are you saying the 7 meter sea level increase is wrong? If so please post your link?

As for the IPCC statement, I see nothing there that is incorrect. Here is the current state of the global temperature increases:



I would say that all the world's land masses, except the tip of South America, New Zealand and a few regions in Antarctica have got warmer and some a lot warmer than the IPCC predicted. What they didn't predict very well was now hot the Arctic has become but as I said before, the world is in a steep learning curve and the worlds climate is a very complex system.

 

[connieguy]

What about this chart???

Never seen it before. Where did it come from? Got a link?

Here is what 4 of the worlds best international climate groups have independently produced:

 

[connieguy]

What about this chart???

Found it:
Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

I took his data, which only goes back to 1979, rescaled it and overlaid it on the 4 group temperature chart:



They align up reasonably well with the same peaks and valleys.

 

[drron]

Here's what you said in post 309-

No one predicted that the 2010 summer min Arctic Ice Cap volume would be 4,000 km^3, down from 18,000 km^3 in 1979. At that rate of summer min ice mass loss, ~450 km^3 / year, there will be virtually no ice in the Arctic during the summer of 2010.

I suggest by now you do have some idea what that will do to the release rate of Methane over the Arctic? Which, BTW, includes the Greenland ice sheet that could add 23 feet / 7 meters to world sea level if it melts.

If your figures are correct and the Ice cap is 22% less than in 1979 then the sea should have already risen 1.54 metres.
Naughty because i know the figures you are quoting are wrong.
I also have to have a laugh when you put down coal mine owners opposing the Carbon Tax because it is only out of pecuniary interest.So anyone that has financial involvement in Alternative Energy suppliers does not have the same motivation to promote the more extreme climate change scenarios?
By the way your heat graph is meaningless answering my point.It is averages.The IPCC report says it is almost inevitable there will be less cold events-their most likely prediction as to the effects of climate change.There are certainly not less such events.In fact for the December 2010 climate conference in Cancun each of the 5 days was a new record low for Cancun.Oh dear.
Remember back when we were told of the dire consequences of the Ozone hole over the Southern hemisphere.Heatwaves,epidemics of skin cancer etc.Now one of the explanations for why the Antarctic is not heating is because heat escapes through the ozone hole.Maybe we shouldn't have tried to fix it?Was obviously an unknown unknown back then.

 

[connieguy]

Here's what you said in post 309-

If your figures are correct and the Ice cap is 22% less than in 1979 then the sea should have already risen 1.54 metres.
Naughty because i know the figures you are quoting are wrong.

The Arctic Ice Cap is floating ice. As it melts there is no sea level increase.

22% less than in 1979? It dropped from a summer min of 18,000 km^3 in 1979 to a summer min of 4,000 km^3 in 2010. That is a 78% reduction! To put that into perspective, that is a chunk of ice 1 km wide, 1 km high and 14,000 km long that has melted so far and has not recovered nor is expected to recover.