But Alex, don't you realise? The Green plan is to turn every other nation into a vast depopulated barren desert too. Australia is simply leading the way in our return to a Stone Age civilisation -- with Stone Age population levels.

Well the truth is slowly emerging.With falling global temperatures the whole deception of AGW which morphed into Climate Change, is now being laid bare.

So the chairman of the Australian Environment Foundation believes in some fairy-land border extending vertically upwards.

No wonder the Department of Climate Change ignores fruit-loops.

This article is the craziest rubbish I've seen on On Line Opinion. I know you set broad horizons for people being able to share their opinions - which is why we read it - but I would expect there to be some level of curatorship which would cull articles like this before they get posted publicly.

JSB,

The craziest?

You must've missed Leigh's piece about hemp the other day.

Dangerous use of Orwellian language here. The AEF - an anti-environment group posing as an environment group.

So the inhabitants of Antarctica should receive even more 'carbon absorbtion bouquets' than we Aussies because they happen to live in an even more sparsely populated country?

What a nonsensical arguement Alex.

JSB
In fact what you really mean is that you don't like the article, hate the conclusions, but for the life of you can't think of a response, so you just label it crazy.

In fact, although I have not run the numbers myself there is at the least a kernel of truth in Stuart's piece. Australia may have high per-capita emissions, but it also has very low population densities. Even in the well settled South East corner and South West fringe its still well below European, US or Chinese population density levels. And even the Nullabor would absorb CO2.

The man has a point, and it would be crazy to dismiss it

Curmudgeon,

you're right I don't like it, yes I hate the conclusions (some of them), and no I didn't bother to explain myself.

I don't doubt that the author's calculations of total CO2 impact including the influence of our territory is reasonable. But it is largely irrelevant in terms of understanding our impact and determining what we should do.

What is relevant is the emissions that we are responsible for. We are not responsible for the fact that we have a huge territory with few people, except perhaps to say that we have an inequitably low proportion of the world's population basking in the comforts of our natural resources... that's a whole separate argument though.

So suggesting that we should be tempering our actions because, actually, we're the planets saviours already, is misleading. And it does not contribute to the debate because it's merely providing misleading support for the perspective that we shouldn't be acting.

The only real relevance of the author's argument is that, if we want to act to improve our emissions, ignoring territorial contribution ignores potential opportunities for leveraging a large influence on net CO2. If the author was discussing what we could do to leverage that, which could (though I have a feeling it wouldn't) dwarf everything else, then that would be an article worth publishing. (The result of that would probably look a lot like the Coalition policy, funnily enough - and fair enough if the figures add up, though from my understanding they wouldn't.)

I'll admit to being partisan and I wouldn't likely object so strongly to something which had a misleading influence in the other direction, but that doesn't mean the article isn't skewed to the point of being against the public interest. (Especially in a context where comments can't be viewed in line with the post so the opportunity for debate around the position raised is diminished.... buth that's another argument as well.)

JSB, I would reject any criticism of this article as crazy or unworthy of On Line Opinion. If population density is irrelevant, how is it that Julia Gillard's plan actually hinges on Australia buying carbon credits to use other people's forests overseas to offset our emissions, as well as using our own forests and farmlands to do the same thing.

If Alex's figures are correct, and they are backed-up by the Global Footprint Network, http://footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/ then Australia is short-changing itself on its carbon offsets, on the government's own logic.

Happy to admit to wrong calls, but this isn't one of them.

JSB

so, okay, what we've come down to is that the article is right - or at least the argument is defensible, rather than crazy - the crazy part is that you don't want arguments like that to absolve us from further reducing carbon.

But as GrahamY points out what, then is the point of us buying carbon credits from overseas? They should buy from us. Or is it you just don't like the thought of any backward step on carbon, and never mind all the incorect nonsense that went before about us being a big per-capital emitter?

Any propoganda is good propoganda if its for the cause. Is that the reasoning?

Alex Stuart may not need to halve his estimate of Australia's CO2 absorption figures to achieve his conclusion because of our large percentage of arid land. On the contrary, there is research from both the deserts of western China and the Mohave desert in the US suggesting that alkaline desert soils absorb large amounts of CO2 -"possibly as much as a temperate forest" http://www.ecostudies.org/press/Schlesinger_Science_13_June_2008.pdf

I think Alex told his readers exactly what he was going up to in his hackneyed Mark twain quote as the first line.

If we are buying offsets from overseas for countries to simply have territory/forests etc. then I completely agree that that is useless, because that is not an offset that somebody is responsible for creating (any more than our deserts are). Having said that, my expectation is that international offsets are for people to actually do things, e.g. reforestation, but I don't know - I'm happy to admit that international offsets are useless if they aren't effecting change.

However the figures in the article are not the increased CO2 offsets that we can effect ourselves, (e.g. through sequestration or forestation) they are merely about latent land and water mass.

The figures in the argument are reasonable/defensible, but they are irrelevant to the broader debate about what we should do - what the article is suggesting is crazy.

I don't know about the figures bandied about about us being the biggest per-capita emmitter, but I do know that they are an indicator the impact that we have control over, and that they should NOT include calculations of the latent impact of the territory we occupy.

I said I wouldn't likely object to propaganda if it supported my perspective, I didn't say there's nothing wrong with it - I think all propaganda should be objected to (or refused to be published, if it is bad enough) if it is blatantly misleading and does not contribute to debate, and that includes stuff I might agree with. I think this is one of those articles that is bad enough.

Another version of the bonmot trolling technique

"So the internet AGW believer catstropharian sites have not yet responded to this angle on CO2 and man made emissions

No wonder bonmot has no response."

The article discusses an interesting angle, worth a look, as a skeptic I always consider new information before consigning it to this or that dustbin or shelf.

For some, anything new or challenging is a threat to their state of denial that there may be other ways to look at things, hence their head in the sand attitude at the mere mention of new information.

Clearly "the science is settled" types need not read anything at all, since they will be told by their masters and handlers if something is required, e.g. "oh wait, trolling needed over there ... assign one of the minions to make some smarmy comment immediately, we don't know if it means anything, but hey, why wait".

Then again, the math is not beyond me.

If you're looking for fruit loops, clearly bonmot has an edge over us all, it is interesting that he knows, that the Dept of Climate Change ignores fruit loops, first hand knowledge I assume?

Do you work at the Dept of Climate Change bonmot? What do you do?

The whole premise of this article is misleading and the logic false because it ignores the fact with natural absorption/emission levels of CO2, there is a natural balance that has seen the natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over millions of years.

The fact is that it's the unnatural, man-made introduction of CO2 into the atmosphere that disturbs the balance.

Australia's natural absorption of CO2 offsets the natural release of CO2, so can't then offset again additional unnatural release of CO2 by man as well.

e.g. I can't spend my savings on a new tv and then spend the money again on a holiday too...

Weren't you people taught critical analysis at school?

The science:
"We begin by figuring1 annual net absorption of CO2 over land by natural processes, mainly vegetation and soil". From this simple premise, the author constructs a story which is meant to be iconoclastic. Unfortunately the author does not include any empirical data. A convenient oversight.

The politics:
Yes, Gillard's carbon tax is not a serious attempt to reduce Co2 or methane emissions within Australia, as Government modelling anticipates targets will be met mainly by buying credits externally. Gillard also has a slush fund for polluters, but then Abbot has a cynical plan to give polluters even more. But you can't explain any of this using conspiracy theories or claims that stupidity or ignorance drives government policy. Making ordinary people to pay for an economic system that is destroying the planet is not a new or uniquely Australian idea.

Sorry GrahamY but in my opinion this is a wrong call.

There are often arguments around climate change from some sectors of the environment movement that I would deem absurd. This has a good chance of topping the worst of them.

To following the logic if a volcano was to start erupting in Australia and it forced our total CO2 contributions, as a continent, into positive territory, we should then be reducing our man made emissions?

I think Alex Stuart might be channelling David Singer.

I remember Kyoto where John Howard's government embarrassed the heck out of me. Not only did they play hard ball and negotiate to be the only country that was allowed to increase its emissions over 1990 levels but we got to credit halting land clearing in your state of Queensland, something that was occurring at a greater rate than the loss of Amazon rainforest in Brazil. After securing all these concessions we got up and left, refusing to sign.

The question is how, as a nation of heavy per capita emitters, can we contribute to a world wide effort in stabilizing of CO2 levels? Our actions will determine how the rest of the world regard us. This type of argument does us little credit even if it was tongue in cheek.

JSB

Oh sure, the bit about buying credits overseas, in either direction, is quite crazy but the Kyoto Protocol and the European ETS allows big chunks of credcit to be bought overseas for all sorts of crazy results and no gain. Those who want to reduce emissions (not me) should campaign against the Clean Development Mechanism..

The Church of AGW seems to be losing some followers and all they can do now is to insult Alex who makes a legitimate argument.We did not over popoulate our country like some on this planet and must now be penalised under the dubious science of global warming theories caused by CO2.Gillard has the audacity to call it carbon pollution when in fact it is CO2.Carbon to Carbon Dioxide is like comparing water H2O to oxygen or hydrogen,they are totally different substances.So it is lie to talk about carbon pollution.CO2 by the way is not listed as a pollutant by our authorities.

They always show power stations emitting copious quantities of white gases.Here is another lie.That white gas is steam that turns the turbines.

The newest theory is that CO2 is causing the Atlantic to cool down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
So from Global warming they moved to Climate Change and now warming is causing cooling.

This is Orwellian double speak and the IPCC has proven to be a dishonest body.Their theory is collapsing and this is why there is an urgency to bring in Carbon Dioxide taxes and the Emitions Trading Scam

Arjay,

Refer to my previous post as to why Alex's argument is not at all legitimate. His argument is akin to basing the winner of a soccer match on how many goals were stopped, not how many were scored.

Secondly, carbon pollution is caused from the burning or breakdown of organic compounds. Look up the definition of what constitutes an organic compound. That's right, Carbon. Besides, arguing semantics is really just a weak position to take, especially when the term 'carbon pollution' is a well established term in the common vernacular.

Thirdly, while there is moisture in the emissions from coal-powered turbines (e.g.last turbine stack I measured was about 10% H2O), in amongst the white steam are all the nasties such as NOx, CO, CO2, SO2, respirable particulates etc. That same turbine stack was pushing out 15% CO2, at an emission rate of over 2 million grams / minute. (This was a coal-fired steam turbine producing 150MW).

So, it's not all steam as you ignorantly try to assert. In fact there is 50% more CO2 than H2O.

And as for the wikipedia link you've posted. "There is SPECULATION that global warming COULD ... lead to cooling or lesser warming IN THAT REGION". Localised cooling. It's a complex system this world climate. Don't post things up and call it double speak because you don't understand the concept.

The IPCC and it's idiot followers are being caught out in their grubby little scam! Usually its reams and reams of balderdash to prove that black is actually white. Now someone comes up with something that hits the mark its yah yah yah we are not talking anymore, the argument is settled!
Well it is not settled, most disagree and you are not trusted at all. The average punter will get his revenge on these scamsters at the next election.

Good article. It deserves better than the emotive comments from the warmists.

It is difficult to understand the CSIRO's pro-AGW position. Could it be that its budget planners are holding a gun to the AGW science head on the grounds that being pro-AGW maximises funding grants from the Govt?

Oh no! It's the carbon tax hate club v the carbon tax love in. Again.

Seriously plebs, what effect will it have on you?

Zilch. Zero. None. Nothing. Nada.

Unless of couse you are a Liberal and can't understand your paranoia about what it might do to your middle class welfare.

Or unless of course you are a Liberal and are just hell bent on a hate filled ideological mission against the loony latte left.

If you are competent and can look after yourself it doesn't matter what the government does.

If you are incompetent (67% apparently) you will call for an election and hope your paranoia or ideology is assuaged.

Too many people rely on unreliable politicians.

Seriously. Gillard is a dud, Abbot is a psycho and Brown is tan. Only true believers, misanthropes and zealots get caught up with this lot.

Get a grip and get a life!

But Neutral, if it will have no effect, then WHY DO IT?

At the very least it will require hundreds more public servants leeching off the taxpayer. Why should we put up with that for NO BENEFIT?

Neutral it's the Loony left who taught the rational libs about hate.

In fact the libs don't have to bother with wasting the effort of hating. Much easier to hold up a mirror, & let all that loony left hate bounce back at them.

Have you been a bit appalled at the amount of hate your receiving? Now you know it is just that reflection of yours you are feeling, perhaps you could modify the level you emit.

No of course you can't, it's all that holds you up.

Jon J - good questions and ones that have continued to be unanswered since Howard oversaw the massive expansion of the public service under his watch. Why expect anything different under Labor?

Hasbeen - I love you!

Please excuse my vanity in quoting myself from another post: "The only thing more entertaining than watching Labor lose their way is the livid apoplexy of the hate filled self righteous Liberals"

So thankyou for my morning chuckle:-)

We love you too Neutral

We have to realise the reasoning behind the ETS.Wayne Swan says that the Carbon tax will give way to an ETS.This trading in carbon will only give more power to a few large industries.Alternate energy sources will not provide the base load power needed for industry so they will have to buy carbon credits to operate.This will mean fewer producers and less competition.In the meanwhile a new derivative market is open for abuse on the sharemarket.This is totally open to rorting like credit default swaps or collaterised debt obliglations etc.How do we know someone has buried carbon via a forest in some remote country? What happens of the carbon credits if the forest burns down? What happens if you buy heeps of carbon credits and find that AGW is a lie? Who is going to keep tabs on it all?

Then there is the issue of funding the UN which Bob Brown endorse via World Governance.Gillard has dedicated 10% of our carbon taxes there already.You won't be able to vote and they'll be telling us what to do with our country and our assets.The UN already has too much influence over our Govt.It will be our worst nightmare.

So Alex, I take it we are putting a giant bubble around Australia and calculating how much carbon that crosses that bubble. We are then claiming Australian's per capita contribution to the problem equals whatever crosses that boundary, divided by the people here. I thought csteele illustrated the ethical problems with this, but let's put those aside and run with it.

You say we net import 4.5 tons/capita/year of carbon as CO2. In other words that amount CO2 being absorbed by our bubble from the rest of the world. It seems like your figures are a decent attempt at a back of the envelope calculation, but I have a problem with you claiming that is the end of our story.

We dig up and export coal at the rate of 250 million tons/year (2008-2009 figures from: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-exports.aspx ) to help support our affluent life style. That equates to 11 ton/capita/year . Almost all of that finds it's way into the atmosphere. That coal crosses the bubble boundary in the wrong direction for your argument. In fact it turns us into a net exporter of the carbon to the tune of 6.5 tones/capita/year. To be fair I tried to account for petroleum imports and what not which do work in your favour, but in the scheme of things they seem to be negligible - roughly 0.01 kg/capita/year if I got my figures right.

To put it another way, if the earth somehow found a way to excise the bubble that contains Australia and put it on another planet, it would be much better off CO2 wise. And contrary to what you say, this makes us one of worst mobs on the planet, not one of the best.

One of favourite sayings: if you torture the data sufficiently, if will confess to almost anything.

I agree with Neutral - after an earnest start with OLO a couple of months ago I lost interest with the constant statement of extreme views on this topic masquerading as discussion.

Here’s another perspective – maybe 280 ppm CO2 is a dangerously low level and we almost got to a point where large-scale loss of vegetation plunged the population into a famine unseen in human history?

Maybe the burning of fossil fuels is an action that will return the atmospheric CO2 level back to a level that will promote life and provide temperatures conducive to plant growth rates required to sustain our population?

All that CO2 has been locked up in fossil fuels since the Devonian to Permian eras – maybe it’s time to set it free and get things back to where they should be?

Often the solution to a problem is not the absolute truth that both the AGW supporters and opponents claim here as their own. Often it is a just matter of having the correct frame of reference.

With the risk of enflaming the left and small “l” liberals (a group to which I probably belong), I will para-quote Ayn Rand - "A contradiction cannot exist - if faced with a contradiction, check your premises because one of them will be wrong.”

*And contrary to what you say, this makes us one of worst mobs on the planet, not one of the best.*

Rstuart, perhaps you are just on an unneeded typical Western guilt
trip. IMHO its pointless working anything out, unless you establish
some kind of breeding value. In other words, the person who pops
out
10 kids will long term have a far larger effect on the planet,
then the person who limits themselves to 0-2. Quite frankly, whilst
the planet keeps increasing at 250'000 extra people per day, I see
absolutaly no reason to join you on that guilt trip.

But Australia could easily improve its CO2 figures, if it really
needed to. Stop all aluminium smelting here, it creates huge amounts
of CO2, even though its others who will use and benefit from that
aluminium. Install a couple of nuclear power plants, bingo our
figures will improve dramatically and all you worrywarts can pat
yourselves on the back and feel better.

So we could easily feel better, but in real terms, its not going to
make a scrap of difference. Whilst Arab sheiks are flying around in
their personal jumbos as private planes and are building snowfields
in the desert, all powered by cheap energy, I see no reason at
all to go on your guilt trips.

Irrespective of the many detractors, Alex Stuart has a valid point in taking account of the natural absorption of emissions in consideration of this complex issue, and his affiliations should not detract from due consideration of the facts addressed. We are talking balance, after all, and the existing and potential absorption capacity of our natural landscape is a fundamental component in addressing that balance.

On the home front, carbon credits/offsets should, at the foremost, include improvements to the absorption capacity of our landscape by reforestation, including increases to plantation forestry, and through improvements in agricultural techniques and soil sequestration - given the great potential these offer, compared to the immediate potentials and time-frame (plus cost) limitations of current alternative energy production options for reducing/offsetting emissions. On world scale, our agricultural techniques are also cost and energy efficient, and highly productive. Contrary to detractors, our retention of forests, reserves and national parks, including the curtailment of widespread clearing in Queensland by the Howard government, are substantial positives in our contribution to the global ecological balance.

Alex Stuart's comparison of our emission to absorption footprint ratio to that of other developed nations is also compelling in bringing the overall emissions question into proper focus. Whereas we have a great many options available to us, many emitters do not - Bahrain for example. This ratio also brings China's development into proper focus - at 10 times our emission to absorption footprint, and with fewer options for at-home offsets, including potentially massive nuclear energy expansion.

Overall atmospheric CO2 increase is the problem, and our net contribution remains minuscule compared to other developed and developing nations - and net contribution IS the issue. (Also, we have no active or dormant volcanoes I am aware of. Our desert areas may not however be alkaline, so relative absorption may be in question.)

Finally, blaming us for emissions produced from our exported coal is blatantly counter-intuitive. It is up to them to offset, or don't buy it.

@Peter Mac: maybe 280 ppm CO2 is a dangerously low level and we almost got to a point where large-scale loss of vegetation plunged the population into a famine unseen in human history?

Maybe we could look it up. If we google "carbon dioxide levels" and click on the first hit, we get the wikipedia article showing historical CO2 levels. We note two things: is has been below 200 ppm while man kind has been on the planet, and all that time it has been growing - the industrial revolution just kicked it along.

@Peter Mac: All that CO2 has been locked up in fossil fuels since the Devonian to Permian eras – maybe it’s time to set it free and get things back to where they should be?

Maybe when you enter Devonian Permian, google's suggestion of "Devonian Permian extinction" might provide a hint that isn't where things should be? It ended with the greatest extinction event the planet has seen.

@Yabby: Rstuart, perhaps you are just on an unneeded typical Western guilt trip.

It had nothing to do with feeling guilty. It was effectively a lead up to the final line, which recall was "if you torture the data sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything". That is what Alex did, and it is what I did. As csteele pointed out, the premise they are founded on is flawed, so they are just meaningless efforts at massaging the figures to make them say what you want. I spent a few years doing the books for my businesses, and one thing I learnt from that is I could swing the bottom line by several times earnings without too much effort.

With respect to population I suspect we always have been in agreement. The entire exercise is a complete and utter waste of time while it keeps growing. The audacity of our political leads claiming they are serious about CO2 while growing while actively promoting policies that grow the population at 1.6% pa is breathtaking.

Yabby and Saltpetre make good points.Even if you believe in AGW and I don't ,it is totally illogical.Why are we going it alone when it will make no difference at all in the acceleration of CO2 emitions,destroy our economy just to make an ideological point.We make up 0.003% of the Worlds' population.We don't count.No one will notice! The applause will be in a vacuum.

Do you think that in your wildest dreams that anyone will notice our example as our living standards sink like a stone? $ billions have already been wiped off our share market due to this Gillard announcement.More industry will move off shore.

It's like a competition of who's best at slashing their wrists.Like all suicides,the world moves on and no one will give a damn.They will just move in and buy up our assets again for next to nothing and change the rules.

Hi rstuart and Peter Mac ,

I think you might find the graph in this blog post useful in discussing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/05/30/so-you-think-carbon-pollution-is-bad-now/.

It also provides a cross-reference against world temperature at the time too.

Stop the press! GrahamY has a graph that shows our CO2 is lower than ever before.

From a random political blog without any referencing as to the scientific source, but we're all gullible idiots here so who's to question it?

Actually, my son drew a line when he was three that, to this day I am convinced shows that CO2 didn't even exist until 1815, so who are we to believe?

Personally, I prefer to refer to information from reliable sources Graham, such as the graphs on this page from NASA:

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators

But I'm sure your unknown political blogger knows better than NASA when it comes to all things climate science.

rstuart – in the spirit of the article, I was offering an alternative perspective of this issue; trying to zoom out a bit to avoid the wood-for-trees blinkers often seen on both sides of the AGW fence.

Your responses?

(1) Man has seen CO2 levels lower than 200ppm and it is increasing now. I’m not sure whether you are suggesting that 200 – 300 ppm should be the benchmark concentration or you are agreeing with the fact that we have narrowly avoided calamity at these low levels.

(2) That there was a mass extinction at the end of the Permian following the Carboniferous when the atmospheric CO2 was reduced from about 5000ppm to less than 1000ppm (this is the same CO2 we are naughtily re-releasing back into the atmosphere). Again, I’m not sure whether you are agreeing with my hypothesis or not.

Graham Y – thanks for the graph. I like the expression “carbon drought”.

TrashcanMan - oops, you should check your timeframes before you start huffing and puffing mate.

The NASA graph shows 400,000 years (a eye-blink in geological time) while GrahamY's graph shows 500 million years. Even rstuart's wikipedia pages provide a graph showing CO2 levels similar to GrahamY's graph.

Where did you think the carbon came from to make all the coal? Or was this black stuff simply placed there on the sixth day?

Peter Mac/ GrahamY

I should have looked at that. I jumped the gun and admit to being wrong in that respect. But you can understand it's invariably irritating when people post up links to internet bloggers as evidence.

So I did the hard work for you, which wasn't that hard, and found the original paper from which the graph was taken. It is, indeed, quite a legitimate source after all:

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

The science behind this is credible, so my apologies again.

What's interesting is that the high CO2 levels 200 million years plus ago can be attributed to large levels of magmatism (which is half the basis of the relationship this paper's theory is based on) and less so to climate variations.

According to the paper, CO2 levels started dropping 200million years ago, about the time mammals started getting about on earth, as magmatic activity died down.

We don't have huge amounts of magmatic activity occurring now to be forcing CO2 up, so the periods of high CO2 in the graph lose their relevance to what is happening now.

So the longer term CO2 levels are not as relevant as the shorter term levels which have seen a steady cycle of warming and cooling

@Peter Mac: That there was a mass extinction at the end of the Permian

Indeed. Conditions were so good the planet life went into exponential overshoot, triggering an anoxic event in the oceans. Evidently you add up the explosion of life during overshoot followed by the extinction of 96% of marine species followed again by an explosion as life recovered, and get a positive ledger. I'd say that is a matter of taste, but perhaps the real point is I'm glad our species didn't have to survive the greatest extinction event the planet has seen.

@Peter Mac: I’m not sure whether you are suggesting that 200 – 300 ppm should be the benchmark concentration or you are agreeing with the fact that we have narrowly avoided calamity at these low levels.

I not suggesting either. The plants in the past seem to do equally well under all conditions. Beyond that, who knows? You evidently don't. I don't, and I am not certain anybody else does either as I've read contradictory opinions from biologists. So why bring it up? Seems like a red herring to me.

@Peter Mac: Even rstuart's wikipedia pages provide a graph showing CO2 levels similar to GrahamY's graph.

One would hope so.

@Peter Mac: Where did you think the carbon came from to make all the coal? Or was this black stuff simply placed there on the sixth day?

You seem to think carbon available to life is a zero sum game. It's not. There is a geological carbon cycle. Google it to get a background. It's ultimately more powerful than anything life can do, so if life buries carbon it provides more, it life releases carbon it turns it into rock. It will have no effect on AGW, as it operates over many millennia, not centuries.

@GrahamY: It also provides a cross-reference against world temperature at the time too.

And you point out they aren't directly correlated. I presume you have seen the explanations and reject them, but in case you haven't here is the best I've seen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpF48b6Lsbo

Trashcanman, the graph was linked to the original source, but thanks for the apology. However, the source of the CO2 shouldn't really concern us as the fact is that it was there.

rstuart, I'm not sure what your argument is about the Permian extinction. How is life supposed to go into "exponential overshoot" and exactly how is that supposed to lead to an anoxic event. As far as I know no-one has a particularly good theory as to what called the extinction.

Also not sure what your theory is as to why there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperature over historical time scales. I don't have time to watch a YouTube video.

@GrahamY: How is life supposed to go into "exponential overshoot" and exactly how is that supposed to lead to an anoxic event.

These anoxic events are the favoured theory on how the sediments we get our oil from were laid down. For example, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Formation That wikipedia article just blandly says so much sea life dies at a single point in time its rotting robs the ocean floor of all oxygen, stopping the normal breakdown process that would return it to the biosphere. So it stays there and if we get lucky and a few other things happen to it, it becomes crude oil. There aren't too many other ways to explain how a thick uniform sediment of organic matter is laid down in a short period onto the ocean floors.

These anoxic are always accompanied by a rapid variation in CO2 levels. The CO2 rises before the event. The rising CO2 and accompanying temperature increase makes living conditions in the seas ideal, driving the explosion of life. This explosion gets beyond the ability of the ocean floor to recycle it, so the carbon remains on the bottom removing carbon from the system. This reduces CO2 levels and ends the event. The ending is usually accompanied by a mass extinction. The background here explains it better than I can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event

I'm using exponential overshoot to mean the system didn't asymptotically approach a stable state where life was abundant, rather it overshot what was sustainable so badly it self destructed into a different stable state.

Triggering one of these things is the only proper use I can see for the term "tripping point" that is often bandied about. As you can see from the Wikipedia article, are a long, long way from it.

@GrahamY: Also not sure what your theory is as to why there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperature over historical time scales. I don't have time to watch a YouTube video.

Explaining it in 350 words without graphs is too hard, so I guess you are never going know what I am on about.

I would like to personally offer my deepest gratitude to Alex Stuart for his novel and unique solution to the climate change problem.
Forget about controlling pollution or reafforestation, that's just silly.
All we have to do is get everyone in the world to buy a large patch of desert, and surround it with a larger stretch of ocean.
Problem solved.
Can't understand why no one else has thought of it.

to arjay:

Dont know where you get your figures from re: co2 from coal fired power stations. My father inlaw is a power station engineer, my wife is a CEO of 2 power station suppliers. FACT: Oz has the cleanest
stations on the planet.
FACT more than 95% of emissions is h2o [ not co2 by a s*it load ]
FACT some of the ash is used in road making material [ your probably driving on one daily ]the rest is used in other products or returned to ground [ I mean it IS carbon after all. or did it magically transmogrify into another element ? ]

rstuart,

thanks for the excellent youtube link, which is very good and shouldn't be despised--especially if Monckton's presentations are a yardstick!
Of course Monckton and his acolytes, the so-called "sceptics" (snicker), are not interested in assessing the arguments, pro-con, around AGW objectively. They have a blind agenda, so naturally suppose everyone else does too.
As for the article, I can't improve on Grim's comment. Only a climate change "sceptic" could take it seriously!

rstuart and TrashcanMan:

Thank you for some excellent and mature discussion - as I suggested, so often missing from this topic. I made some fairly simplistic statements regarding the variation of CO2 levels around 150 - 350 Ma and some of the events that we think occured around that time - it is obviously more complex and covers a much longer timeframe than is being considered in the AGW debate.

The point I was making was that the AGW supporters project a concept of 280ppm "good" and 500ppm "bad" (or whatever). What if it's the other way round?

I consider myself a well educated and read individual. If I am to be taken as the "mean" for all people in the ongoing climate change or what ever you want to call it debate, then heaven help us. I go from pos to neg and back again when I read these blogs and other articles and see the various propositions and arguments put forward. What hope does the ordinary (I am not professing to be extraordinary by the way, far from it) man/woman have to know what is or isn't the truth!! You all have logical reasoning but unfortunately no consensus. Great reading though.

rstuart, if you can't explain the arguments of the YouTube video to me, then you shouldn't use it. Either you don't understand it, or you are fobbing me off. Neither helps the discussion.

I watched enough of it to know that the supercilious narrator is no better than Monckton. Imagine suggesting that CO2 is like having a heater in the house. Heaters produce energy, but CO2 doesn't. The analogy reveals that he doesn't understand the issues, so I saw no point in continuing to watch it and trying to summarise it for you.

I did look at Wikipedia on the anoxic episodes and it doesn't agree with your summary. It suggests that global warming, caused by volcanism, stopped the circulation in the oceans and this caused the anoxic episodes. However, it is light on serious references. (I don't count The Discovery Channel as a reliable source). It also brings up the clathrate hypothesis.

But when I do further research I find other competing theories such as the claim that the anoxic event occurred because of the release of sulphur by volcanoes fertilising the oceans. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo743.html. This is nothing to do with CO2.

Hi Graham, I did watch the video all the way through, and thought it was rather good. (I thought the presenter was more sarcastic than supercilious, but then I could be a little biased; some people have actually suggested I can be a little sarcastic at times...)
The analogy of the cabin heater I think was valid, inasmuch as CO2 is responsible for containing re- radiated energy. The Earth's surface becomes the 'heater'. In the case of the Earth's atmosphere, the initial source of energy is of course the sun; in the analogy of the cabin the initial source might be oil or wood.
This article demonstrates that we now have 3 options rather than 2.
We live on a boat, floating on a wide and hostile sea. It's the only boat we have, and there are no lifeboats. About 97% of the people most knowledgeable about how the boat floats believe it might be sinking. In fact they are about 95% certain the boat is sinking, and that our sloppy housekeeping is at least partially to blame. A small minority of experts believe the boat isn't sinking, or that if it is sinking there is nothing we can do about it.
Our options are:
Listen to the majority of experts, and look for ways to stop our boat sinking. starting with simply cleaning up our sloppy habits so as not to exacerbate the situation;
Listen to the minority of experts, and do nothing;
Or, do as Alex Stuart has done: devote our efforts to finding a really good excuse, so that if and when our boat sinks, at least we can say it wasn't our fault.
I'm afraid I'm rather a pessimist. The marketplace isn't teleological, and we'll continue to do little or nothing until it's too late. Right now, I believe the smartest thing OZ (and communities, and individuals) could do is concentrate on achieving the greatest level of self sufficiency possible.
Charity begins at home. If the worst occurs, we'll be ready for it, and if it doesn't, what have we lost?

Grim, he has the sun as being the source of warming and then has a heater inside as well. It's not a valid analogy. The point he is making has some validity - a hotter sun is going to make the earth hotter - but the analogy is quite wrong.

If someone is that sloppy at that level, then I don't think there is much point persevering. I couldn't see anywhere who the person was. I bet he wasn't a climate scientist, so a lot of your colleagues would say we shouldn't pay any attention to him anyway.

Which leads me to the 95% of experts claim. It's just not true. There is a substantial body of opinion that says other factors are more determinative of temperature than CO2. It's not just a "small minority" it's a substantial minority. And when you look at the evidence you'd have to say that the lower end of IPCC forecasts is more likely to be true rather than the high end, in which case we don't have a life-threatening situation.

Added to that, most economists who have modelled the costs of adapting or abating have determined that adapting is the best course. The only one who hasn't is Stern, and that was only be manipulating the discount rate. Put his discount rate where it should be and he comes to the same conclusion.

Not that Alex's article is about any of this anyway - he is merely pointing out that it is a population issue. If the rest of the world had a population density like Australia there wouldn't be an issue at all. That being the case, Australia ought to get some recognition for that, just like people in other places are.

“Grim, he has the sun as being the source of warming and then has a heater inside as well.”
Precisely my point Graham. The sun warms Earth from above, then the Earth -the heater- re radiates. No CO2, the warmth radiates away (no heater, snowball Earth). High CO2, the heat can't radiate away (heater, snowball Earth defrosts).
Be fair Graham. You're critiquing a video you admit you haven't bothered to watch.
In the bit you didn't watch, the presenters name is highlighted. Peter Hadfield, a one time writer for “New Scientist”. Some people might suggest a professional science journo probably has as much credibility as a journo for an online opinion site.
http://www.good.is/post/peter-hadfield-has-an-excellent-youtube-channel/
Yeah, OK he is supercilious.
As to the question of 'experts', the stats I have seen (and had quoted to me on this website) is that a majority of scientists buy into AGW, and an overwhelming majority of Climate scientists, but so what? If you consulted a hundred doctors on the health of your child, and only 55% told you your housekeeping was making her sick, would you carry on as usual?
And as far as 'Adapting', well, I've already admitted that is what we will have to do because there's Buckley's of us doing anything else, but as to the costs... Consider that almost a billion people are under nourished now, in the system that we are 'adapted' to.
How do you think they'll go, 'adapting'?

@GrahamY: Grim, he has the sun as being the source of warming and then has a heater inside as well. It's not a valid analogy.

True, its model is an exact match for our climate, and that oddly was my first thought as I started watching it. But he was using it to illustrate leading and lagging forcings. He did tie it into CO2 levels later, and in the end I thought he did a pretty good job of it - otherwise I would not have posted it.

@GrahamY: I watched enough of it to know that the supercilious narrator is no better than Monckton.

Unfortunately the video is about him demonstrating Monckton is simply wrong, unfortunate because it is a distraction. I didn't choose it for that reason, I choose it because it had the clearest answer to your query on "why there is no correlation between CO2". However now you've brought it up, it also demonstrates why he is better than Monckton. He doesn't invent his facts.

@GrahamY: The analogy reveals that he doesn't understand the issues, so I saw no point in continuing to watch it and trying to summarise it for you.

Probably wise. I think I can understand it without your help. That was the point of posting it really - just about anybody could. It has been explained many times in writing without a 350 word no graphics limit, and yet people persist in saying they aren't correlated.

@GrahamY: It suggests that global warming, caused by volcanism, stopped the circulation in the oceans and this caused the anoxic episodes.

Correct. To put it more precisely the CO2 released by volcanism gradually raised the temperature, and this triggered a few things such as the circulation stopping. They don't mention it in that article, but the usual reason given for circulation stopping is the ice caps melting. Like all Wikipedia articles it is narrowly focused, you have be curious enough to go looking to discover the entire chain of events.

@Grim

<< Consider that almost a billion people are under nourished now, in the system that we are 'adapted' to.
How do you think they'll go, 'adapting'? >>

Well, Grim, a good starting point might be to ensure that that (unadapted) “billion” do not through hyper-fertility rates grow into two billion, as has been the practice in the past, each time trillion$ in aid is provided to alleviate their medical and nutritional shortcomings.

It is no mere coincidence that regions of the world with the most undernourished are also the regions with the fastest population growth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

@ RStuart & Co,

I watched your vid, all the way through, twice: Sorry to break the news to you but there is a problem with your favoured snowball Earth thesis. To confirm the correlation between CO2 and temperature you *need* a snow Earth. Not just a cold Earth , nor even a slushy Earth, but a thick crusted, frozen snowball Earth.How else can explain that with such heavy concentrations of CO2 ( 6000-7000 ppm) it took “millions of years” to return Earth to warm times.

Monckton’s case on the other hand only needs a cool Earth and high concentrations of CO2.

However, the case for a snowball Earth is far from (to use a word close to the heart of warmists) the *consensus* position: : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

1) “Some scholars suggest that the Neoproterozoic Snowball Earth was in fact no different from any other glaciation in Earth's history, and that efforts to find a single cause are likely to end in failure”

And most telling of all, since we know how much reliance your wamists place on *models*:

2) “There have been difficulties in recreating a Snowball Earth with global climate models.” –ouch! that must smart.

( please ignore this bit: “The geological community generally accepts this hypothesis because it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes” Since we know from climate change debates that geologist are not real scientists!)

@SPQR: I watched your vid, all the way through, twice

Did you? That must of been painful. I'm impressed. As GrahamY says, he is a supercilious chap and that must make him had to watch if you disagree with him. He sometimes gives impression of a man who loves pulling the wings off flies. His preferred targets such as Monckton and creationists are very low hanging fruit, their wings are 1/2 off to start with.

@SPQR: To confirm the correlation between CO2 and temperature you *need* a snow Earth.

Perhaps you can supply a similar link explaining why we *need* a snowball earth to confirm the correlation. I don't get it.

@SPQR: geologist are not real scientists!

Eh? Of course they are real scientists. They understand geology. If their consensus is the only way rock X can arrive position Y is via mechanism Z, then I am inclined to believe them. Who else am I going to put my trust in? No one else has studies the problem as long and as hard as they have. Its when they start talking outside of their area that they become layman, just like the rest of us.

Hi SPQR,
“It is no mere coincidence that regions of the world with the most undernourished are also the regions with the fastest population growth.”
This is such an old argument, I'm amazed you haven't heard it a hundred times before.
When a parent loses a child, the very first reaction is to have another child. This has been demonstrated so many times, where have you been? The very fastest way to stop people from having more children is simply to drop the infant mortality level to below 4%.
When children stop dying, parents stop trying to replace them.
Every country on the planet that has an infant mortality rate of less than 4% is also (or has been) experiencing negative growth rate (excluding immigration). Australia of course is trying to change that, by paying people to have children.
As an early Arab OPEC minister put it, about life before oil: “we were very poor. It was common practice for families to have 6 or 7 children, in the hope that one might survive”.
What do you suggest we do about the 850 million children suffering from malnutrition, SPQR?
Of course, if you were in that situation, you wouldn't fall into that trap, would you?
You're obviously one of those fortunate people that, had you been born into a black family,
you'd still be white.

@RStuart,

<< Perhaps you can supply a similar link explaining why we *need* a snowball earth to confirm the correlation. I don't get it.

Well, RStuart, this is how I see it:

Monckton (and others) contend that there is only a weak link between CO2 and global temperature increases, since there have been periods (like the Cambrian) when the Earth concurrently held substantial surface ice and relative high concentrations of CO2.

You and your youtube mate , have countered, that, at the time the Earth was actually frozen over, akin to a ice ball. And it took some time (“25 millions years”, in fact!) for the greenhouse effect to erode the thick crust of ice. Just as it takes the heater in the alpine cabin, in the vid, some time to heat things up.

However, we have been led to believe by warmists –who tell us every other day – that the greenhouse effect has a short time fuse. Even with today’s comparatively sparse levels of CO2 [385 ppm] over the comparatively short 100-200 years span since industrialisation, anthropogenic CO2 has been ,apparently!, able to force the Himalayan glaciers to retreat by hundreds of metres, undermine the Greenland iceshelf , and “eat off chunks of the Antarctic the size of Maine”.

Having digested all that, it is a little hard to believe that a whopping 6000-7000ppm of CO2 ,aided and abetted by a younger tectonically active/hotter earth, took millions of years to erode the Cambrian ice skin --even if it was a thick planet wide crust

However, it gets even more incredible when we learn that the latest evidence coming in seems to point to the Cambrian ice being substantially less than an all Earth enveloping ice sheet (i.e. there was NO, repeat NO, planet wide ice sheet reflecting the heat!)

I can only surmise one of the two things :
1) Cambrian CO2 was a darn side more wimpy that modern CO2 ,or
2) There is something wrong with your AGW hypothesis.

rstuart, that is actually a less accurate summary of the Wikipedia entry. The entry lays a fair part of the blame on fertilisation of the oceans, not by CO2 but by erosion. But that is just Wikipedia's version, and on climate science Wikipedia is not particularly good. Others argue that the fertilisation came from sulphur emissions.

I understand the proposed mechanism for how ocean circulation might break down, but it's not particularly convincing argument in this case. If anoxic episodes are caused by higher temperatures caused by CO2 how do you explain the fact that the oceans weren't anoxic for most of pre-history.

Go and check the graph again http://www.ambitgambit.com/2011/05/30/so-you-think-carbon-pollution-is-bad-now/. See how miniscule CO2 concentrations are now, take into consideration its logarithmic function in terms of IR radation, and come back with a straight face and tell me that higher CO2 from these depressed levels is going to lead to a mass extinction.

Grim, I'll see your science qualifications and raise you. I've gone looking for your hero Peter Hadfield's qualifications. Can't find any reference. Perhaps you can fill in the gap for me.

While I find these latest comments fascinating (I am not biogeochemist, atmospheric physicist, palaeo-oceanogographer etc. like some here) may I humbly suggest you all get back to topic.

Or, start a general discussion thread and go holters-bolters there.

If you do, check out "Principles of Planetary Climate" - it may help sheath your swords :)

oops, more typos!

@ Grim,
<< As an early Arab OPEC minister put it, about life before oil: “we were very poor. It was common practice for families to have 6 or 7 children, in the hope that one might survive”.>>

Guess, what, Grim ? they now have lots and lots and lots of oil, but many are still having close to 6-7 children per family:

Here’s how the big daddy of OPEC stacks up:

Saudi Arabia 5.8

And, here’s another OPECian

Nigeria 5.2

And then, there’s this non-OPEC heavy weight champ

Yemen 7.6

http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm

and there’s is also no relationship between infant mortality and fertility .

But you are right about one thing. There is a relationship between oil revenue and population.
When the oil money runs out and they can no longer sponsor bread and circuses.
There will be hordes of them running to the West (even more than there are currently) all singing

We are [refugees] if you please
We are [refugees] if you don't please
Now we're looking over our new domisile
If we like we stay for maybe quite a while

And then, you can get on your other hobby horse –open borders –and lobby to have them all let in!

Now it's looking really sick - well done!

@SPQR: it is a little hard to believe that a whopping 6000-7000ppm of CO2 ... took millions of years to erode ... a thick planet wide crust

Here is a a some quick quiz:

1. What is the effect on global warming of increasing the CO2 concentration by a factor or say 10? Does it increase by 10?

2. What substance in the air currently causes most of the green house warming?

If you know the answer to those two questions, then with a little thought 25 million years to melt snowball earth doesn't seem so implausible. At least it didn't to me.

It's not difficult to understand if you take the time. It looks to like you haven't taken the time at least come to grips with the basic science, preferring instead to take pot shots from the sidelines at something that threatens your world view.

The problem I have with this brand of scepticism the science we are discussing here is pretty simple stuff compared to what they actually do to model climate. I don't understand it. It's not for lack of trying in my spare time. I suspect to understand it and get some confidence in what they are doing I would have to literally take time off for weeks, understand the equations they are using, design my own models, compare the output of the models to real world data sets. Admittedly this is not helped by the lousy way they publish their data sets, models and results. The way they do it is appropriate for the pre-internet 20th century, not now.

Anyway, the point is I am judging your attitude not by what you think of things that are very difficult to understand. I confess the fact that almost all people who study the climate think the models are accurate if not enough to remove all lingering doubts for me. But this refusal to look at and understand the simple science before criticising it - this betrays healthy scepticism. If you don't evaluate simple stuff apolitically, your pot shots at the complex stuff are just noise.

SPQR,

"...over the comparatively short 100-200 years span since industrialisation...."

Short time span, historically speaking - a major alteration, however, in the mode of human activity. It's a monumental departure from the previous state of affairs.

It's called cause and effect.

@GrahamY: The entry lays a fair part of the blame on fertilisation of the oceans, not by CO2 but by erosion.

Oh for pete's sake. What caused the erosion? Answer: heavy rainfall, not doubt lasted with liberal serving of the carbolic acid that drives the geological carbon cycle. What caused the heavy rainfall: higher temperatures. And what caused the higher temperatures: the greenhouse effect. And what caused the greenhouse effect ...?

@GrahamY: If anoxic episodes are caused by higher temperatures caused by CO2 how do you explain the fact that the oceans weren't anoxic for most of pre-history.

The fundamental driver is an explosion of life in the sea. Yes, that requires CO2 and higher temperatures. But it isn't the only thing life requires, so it is not surprising the geological carbon cycle nipped the process in the bud on occasions.

Your argument that we are a long long way away from these events seems true on the surface. But what seems far becomes much closer in the face of exponential growth. Currently doubling time of CO2 concentrations seems to be around 50 years. If that continued for 200 years we would be in deep trouble indeed. The current levels of just under 400ppm would rise to 6400ppm.

My problem is I can't see that happening. The IEA and USGS predicted it would be possible in the Bush era, but now we have more sober predictions which show both oil and coal peaking this century.

But here is the thing: peak carbon could be even more challenging to us than AGW. A sudden, force transition to other energy sources would be very difficult indeed, almost certainly involving famines and death for swathes of humanity. A carbon tax, which essentially what the article is arguing against, happens to address both AGW and peak carbon. Being on top of things in a post carbon world would be a very good thing for Australia, economically. Sometimes you can get lucky.

When rstuart makes a political alliance with Pericles on defining subjects like the power of the Global Resreve Banks,then there are serious doubts about his intentions.These two have ganged up upon myself in ad hominem on my general discussion thread,'The Revolution in Europe has Begun' and not argued any logic I've presented.Rstuart has an agenda and it is not truth or integrity to benefit all humanity.

@RStuart,

<<It looks to me like you haven't taken the time at least come to grips with the basic science, preferring instead to take pot shots from the sidelines>>

"Pot shots"?
‘Twas more like a ruddy great barrage that brought down your mainsail (you're the one for pot shots... and maybe some whisky shots too!) .

380 ppm of CO2 (to borrow a line from Poirot) caused “a monumental departure from the previous state of affair” in just 100-200 years , yet 6000-7000 ppm took 25 mil years!

Unable to give an effective answer , you reverted to the classic believers rouse of telling the sceptic they just don’t understand, or asking them to look a little harder and they will surely see.


<< The science we are discussing here is pretty simple stuff compared to what they actually do to model climate. I don't understand it. It's not for lack of trying in my spare time. I suspect to understand it and get some confidence in what they are doing I would have to literally take time off for weeks, understand the equations they are using, design my own models, compare the output of the models to real world data sets… almost all people who study the climate think the models are accurate if not enough to remove all lingering doubts for me.>>

If you are that impressed with climate models . You would have been blown away by some of the financial modelling invented by quants in the pre-global financial crisis world. Everyone who used their models thought they worked wonders too -- till they lost their shirts.

Strangely enough, your climate models will have us losing our shirts too --- with the unilateral carbon tax and the like.

@SPQR,

The answer was in the questions I posed. You just didn't look.

Quiz answers, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas :

- The greenhouse effect of CO2 increases with the log of the concentration. Thus a 380 to 7000 isn't the 18 times increase. It's under a 4 times increase.

- The major greenhouse is water vapour, not CO2. The effect of CO2 is minor. In triggers a tiny rise in the temperature, which increases the amount of water vapour, which triggers another rise, which causes yet more water vapour to enter atmosphere and on and on.

Finally, the greenhouse effect depends energy from the sun being absorbed and re-radiated as heat. The sunlight passes through the greenhouse gases easily. The re-radiated infra-red doesn't, so it is trapped. Our planet has lots of dark green/brown/blue surfaces right now, so this absorb/re-radiate mechanism dominates.

OK, so with the physics in place it's time develop our climate model for snowball earth.

1. The 7000ppm CO2 has a fraction of the effect 400/7000 ratio implies because adding CO2 gets diminishing returns, and because CO2 isn't a strong greenhouse gas.

2. The major greenhouse gas, water vapour, is mostly absent because the seas are frozen and the air is cold.

3. The planet is a shiny white colour. The sun's energy isn't being absorbed and re-radiated back at a lower frequency, it is mostly being reflected at the same frequency and that frequency isn't a effected by CO2.

Put it all together and the wonder isn't that it took 25 million years to melt snowball earth. The wonder is it melted at all.

@SPQR: Unable to give an effective answer, you reverted to the classic believers rouse of telling the sceptic they just don’t understand

So you have learnt several things today. One is about snowball earth, another is you truly didn't understand, and finally how a person might go about testing if you are more interested in taking pot shots than engaging in the debate at hand.

@ RStuart,

Thank you for your climate science 101 tute –now we’ll tell you where you went wrong:

<< The greenhouse effect of CO2 increases with the log of the concentration. Thus a 380 to 7000 isn't the 18 times increase. It's under a 4 times increase.>>
The key point –which you seem intent on trying to redefine away – is that CO2 concentrations during the cold Neoproterozoic era were many times more than they are today.

<< CO2 … triggers a … rise in the temperature, which increases the amount of water vapour, which triggers another rise, which causes yet more water vapour to enter atmosphere and on and on>>
Except, there wasn’t a progressive warming as you imply. There might well have been “ at least two and possibly up to six 'snowball' phases between 750 million and 580 million years ago”

<<The planet is a shiny white colour. The sun's energy … is mostly being reflected >>
The planet MIGHT have been a shiny white ball if what occurred had matched the classic snowball Earth description. Except, we now know there was no all Earth encompassing snowball. And how do we know this? Because we are finding areas of the Earth that were never covered by ice during any of the ice periods. And because the climate models which you are usually very enamored with cannot produce a whole Earth snowball.In such models the tropics are left ice-free. And if the tropics are not a “shiny white colour ” they were likely to have been “lots of dark green/brown/blue” colours absorbing lots of energy.And why is that especially significant ? Because most of the sun energy falls on the tropics.

<< The major greenhouse gas, water vapour, is mostly absent because the seas are frozen and the air is cold>>
Your wording here is (deliberately) misleading. Cold air is not devoid of water vapour.
And the same volcanic activity which is thought to have released the CO2 would have released huge volumes of water vapour : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_gas

@SPQR: The key point –which you seem intent on trying to redefine away – is that CO2 concentrations during the cold Neoproterozoic era were many times more than they are today.

No, the key point is the greenhouse effect of the CO2 was less than 4 times, and that is 4 times of "not much" because CO2 isn't the strongest greenhouse gas. We are discussing physics here, not morals or ethics. You can not refine the physics of a gas away. It is what it is - hard, real and unchanging.

@SPQR: Because we are finding areas of the Earth that were never covered by ice during any of the ice periods.

Your original query was: if there was a snowball earth, how come it took 25 million years to melt. I am answering that. We both agree snowball earth theory is somewhat speculative, the degree it to which it happened under debate, that includes the thing you are taking exception to: that they lasted 25 million years. The point you are making here is if you vary your original question and the earth wasn't really a snowball, or it didn't last 25 million years, then my answer may not apply. Your probably right, but I do not have the time nor inclination to address every scenario you dream up.

@SPQR: Your wording here is (deliberately) misleading. Cold air is not devoid of water vapour.

No, my wording was spot on accurate. The amount of water vapour the air can hold varies with temperature. It's an exponential relationship, which roughly translates to the air holding bugger all until it gets to 0C, then going up rapidly thereafter with increasing temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water

@SPQR: And the same volcanic activity which is thought to have released the CO2 would have released huge volumes of water vapour

Irrelevant. What happens when the hot water vapour from the volcanoes hits the air? It cools obviously, and as soon as it does the vapour pressure law quoted above means it condenses out.

@RStuart,

<<We are discussing physics here, not morals or ethics.>>
No. One of us is using physics to hype "the greatest moral” crusade of our time ---And, it certainly ain’t me!

<< the key point is the greenhouse effect of the CO2 was less than 4 times, and that is 4 times of "not much">>
However you might try to reframe it. If an increase of CO2 from “ pre-industrial … 280 ppms to 379 ppm in 2005” resulted in an increase in global temperature (more than IC over the continents),the worldwide retreat glaciers, the extensive loss permafrost & sea ice , and worldwide expansion of deserts. And had the strongest impact on the higher colder latitudes.[and according to this it did: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf] It is entirely reasonable to have expected the higher levels of Neoproterozoic CO2 to have had a greater impact.

<< Your original query was: if there was a snowball earth, how come it took 25 million years to melt. I am answering that>>
No , if you care to go back and read it (and you could benefit from reading it multiple times!). It said, it was incredible that it took 25 million year for such high levels of CO2 to melt a SNOWBALL EARTH. BUT (and this was the part you missed) given that evidence is now coming in that there was NO whole Earth encompassing ice sheet, it is even more incredible it took 25 million year to heat up!

<<No, my wording was spot on accurate. The amount of water vapour the air can hold varies with temperature>>
Your original wording : “water vapour, is mostly absent because the seas are frozen and the air is cold.” Plays on the (false) image of as solid snowball Earth with worldwide Antarctic conditions.Given what we are now finding there was likely to have been a variety of climate zones on Neoproterozoic Earth. Water vapour is likely to have been a lot more prevalent than you allow for.

<< when the hot water vapour from the volcanoes hits the air? It cools >>
Ditto previous point.

@SPQR: It is entirely reasonable to have expected the higher levels of Neoproterozoic CO2 to have had a greater impact.

I don't see any new facts, discussion or reasoning. Instead of refuting the points I raised, you ignore all proceeding debate and just repeat your beliefs.

@SPQR: evidence is now coming in that there was NO whole Earth encompassing ice sheet,

I know this is a futile request given your behaviour above, but try to get your head around what we are discussing here. This isn't about what actually happened. It is exploring the boundaries on what could have happened. Your question was "if there was a snowball earth happened, could it take 25 millions to melt?". The answer is most scientists evidently believe something like that is plausible. The article makes it plain why it could take 25 million years (something you conveniently ignore):

"The carbon dioxide levels necessary to unfreeze the Earth have been estimated as being 350 times what they are today, about 13% of the atmosphere."

All I was explain some of the physics behind what is already there in black and white on Wikipedia.

Now you say, "but perhaps it wasn't frozen over". Yes, that is another possibility. But in that case it probably didn't take 25 million years to melt. Notice the article doesn't say how long it took to melt. You can understand why by looking at the geological temperature record. There is something odd about it:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

In recent times the climate has oscillated on roughly a 100,000 year time scale. But go back 100,000,000 years and those oscillations are gone. Did they really go, or is this an artefact that it is bloody hard to know what the temperature was so long ago? If they didn't go you may be right - the planet didn't freeze over, but neither did it take 25 million years to melt.

@ RStuart,

When we started out you were ridiculing Monckton for claiming that there was only weak or ambiguous historic links between CO2 and temperature. In particular, the Neoproterozoic era which had high levels of CO2 yet not exceptionally high temperatures.

You showed us a vid “ because it had the clearest answer to” such bunkum [Tuesday, 19 July 2011] The vid talked about there being a snowball Earth and just like a heater in a snow bound cabin it took time for the CO2 to heat things up (hence the lag).

And, you ran with that :
i) “To put it more precisely the CO2 released by volcanism gradually raised the temperature” [ Tuesday, 19 July 2011 ]
ii) “ OK, so with the physics in place it's time develop our climate model for snowball earth” [Friday, 22 July 2011 ]
iii) “The planet [was] a shiny white colour.” [Friday, 22 July 2011]

Until some whopping great holes began to appear in your favored scenario:

1) “ the complete deep-freeze suggested by 'Snowball Earth' theories never took place “
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070323104746.htm

2) “ If the ocean was not isolated from the atmosphere, then how did the glaciations of the Cryogenian give way to the warm oceans… the answer may lie in the link between the Precambrian climate and the carbon cycle, which was very different from that of the current day.”.
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/earthscienceandengineering/aboutese/hottopic/pasttopics/snowball%20earth

This bit bears repeating: “the Precambrian climate and the carbon cycle… was very different from that of the current day”
Who does this little finding tend to favor Monckton , or his maligners ?

By the [24 July 2011] you had retreated to: “If they didn't go you may be right - the planet didn't freeze over”

Why would there be any need to add any “new facts and reasoning”!

If you continue at this rate with climb downs (though step-ups might be more appropriate) we might expect to see you on the skeptic side of the house real soon –I’ll save you seat.
(PS:but leave your pot shots at home!)
Cheers!

@SPQR: Until some whopping great holes began to appear in your favored scenario

You don't get it do you. The person who brought up snowball earth is you, not me. I don't care whether the planet froze over. Climate science doesn't depend on whether the planet froze over or not. In fact as you point out, climate models can't actually reproduce the freezing.

The only thing point being made is _if_ the planet did freeze over, it taking 25 million years to unfreeze is entirely plausible, and does not contradict current climate science.

Sadly, It doesn't appear that I've missed too much in the last 5 days.
I think what needs to be kept in mind through all this, -and also why I think scientists might need to employ counter spin doctors- is that no credible climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 is the ONLY trigger for global warming. Solar cycles, sunspot activity, mass extinctions, deep ocean currents, volcanic activity and possibly even galactic and extra solar events can all affect climate.
About the only thing that is known, beyond argument, is that for the very first time in the 4.5 billion year history of the planet, one species has deliberately introduced itself as another climate change trigger, by turning previously underground hydrocarbons into 21 BILLION tonnes of atmospheric gases every year.
Steadily, relentlessly, and increasingly, to the point where all those valuable assets are gone. If not forever,
at least for millions of years.
With absolutely no thought -up to now- about what affect this might have on our one and only habitat.
Incredibly, at the same time as this species is deliberately making our atmosphere more comfortable for plant life, it is destroying the forests which can most benefit from this change.
And the species in question actually describes itself as intelligent.

Now, in response to some of the 'hyperbole'.
SPQR claims:
“And then, you can get on your other hobby horse –open borders –and lobby to have them all let in!”
If S. could provide sources, I will happily print a retraction. Far from advocating open borders, I can only recall advocating spending less money on OFFensive weapons of war, and redirecting those funds into DEfensive weaponry, to increase border security. Apart from that, I can recall only suggesting that the world might be a better place if we all believed everyone has a right to be treated with compassion, and a concomitant duty to offer compassion.
Hardly controversial, or original, and certainly not even advocating open borders, much less making them a 'hobby horse'.
As a debating tactic, no doubt the spurious 'Lord' Moncton would be proud.
Graham, I offered one link quoting Hadfield as being a “former New Scientist reporter”.
I am not Andrew Price, and I had never even heard of Hadfield until I went to the link supplied by rstuart. As to Hadfield being my 'hero', I suggested -after agreeing that yes he was supercilious- as a science writer he had at least as much credibility as the owner and editor of OLO (by inference).
Unless of course you think you yourself are also one of my heroes?
…
This highlights a point made in one of Hadfield's vid's; the importance of tracing sources back to the original; something Monckton often fails to do, and even when he does, often deliberately misquotes.
Having said all this, I must thank Graham for his accusation as it impelled me to watch more of Hadfield's (Potholer 54) rather good presentations. On the other hand, I also found the arguments presented by Freeman Dyson rather compelling.
http://youtu.be/JTSxubKfTBU
This is what it means to be a genuine 'sceptic', rather than an Alarmist or a Denialist.

People will always seek to breed and AS the carrying capacity of the Earth is finite at some point in the next 100 years there will be massive civilisation collapse. And that's discounting an imminent OIL distribution collapse that would leave this Nation in TATTERS.

How sexientists can waste their time on AGW in light of this is testament to the failure of science in this ECONOMIC based Global system that seeks to reward science for perpetuality rather than truth?

I'll never believe bodies like the CSIRO on any significant science issue again.

The political corruption reeks!

Okay, so it's been a bit over 2 weeks since this come on, but by now some of the hysteria may've settled and maybe a Bex and a good lie down may've helped a couple of excited posters. My qualifications may only be in Climate Science, National Park Management and Conservation, but I'd come to the same conclusion about Australia and our CO2 balance. But I came by it by using CSIRO published information in the BushFire Management Handbook. Calculated on typical vegetation densities and growth rates I found that our natural forests stretching from the Daintree to the Otways easily absorb all of the anthropogenic CO2 generations. Before we include the ocean sink. And remember that the Southern Hemisphere Atmosphere doesn't mix with the Northern Hemisphere. The winds don't blow across the equator. They mix, but they don't blow across. It isn't as simple a relationship as some would have you believe. Good demonstration of this was the recent Chilean volcanic ash cloud. It remained in a narrow band as it circled the Southern Hemisphere.