Part of the problem is that we are being asked to support a system that is not the most cost effective way to drive down emissions. In addition, it depends on "putting a price on carbon" to get results.

Putting a price on carbon means that there has to be potentially destabilizing jumps in prices before investment in the clean alternative starts, even though in many cases, the average cost may only ramp up slowly as the clean alternative replaces the dirty alternative. (Think electricty for example. It is the sudden and unnecesary jump in price that has got so many industries spooked.)

In addition, putting the one price on carbon means that many industries will find it more cost effective to pay the price, pass it on to their customers and do nothing about emissions - all pain for no gain.

It would make a lot more sense for Penny wong to get out of her ETS bunker and have a serious look at the alternatives.

It would make a lot more sense to use a "multiple scheme approach" (MSA). Under MSA, a number of separate schemes would operate at the same time with each scheme designed to deal with specific industries or opportunities. For example, the fuel consumption of new cars could be reduced by regulation without any need to change the price of fuel.

“My “scientific” questions remain, please help. If the total Fossil Fuel Consumption since 1850 has increased by 1,280%, why has the ACC only increased by 30% and what does that logically tell us about the proposed ETS?”

I would say logically (and in my unscientific opinion) Spindoc that you can not equate liquid with a gas. If that were correct, humans would have fossilised long ago - assuming that you are referring to carbon dioxide(ACC?) Industrial CO2 is a result of combustion processes including motor vehicles and the transport industry.

The following information may be helpful:

Currently, for each 4 gigatons of fossil carbon burned, the atmosphere's CO2 content rises about 1 ppm; including deforestation, we now emit about 8 Gt of carbon per year (2006 – 8.38Gt.)

The rate at which chemical change happens matters and you would need to know the lag time for each carbon chemical's process. For instance what is the atmospheric lag time before benzene’s conversion to carbon dioxide? Some hydrocarbons may oxidize to CO2 quickly, others may take decades or centuries.

The lifetime of a pollutant is often considered in conjunction with the mixing of pollutants in the atmosphere; a long lifetime will allow the pollutant to mix throughout the atmosphere. Average lifetimes can vary from about a week (e.g., sulfate aerosols) to more than a century (e.g., CFCs, carbon dioxide.)

The lifetime of a greenhouse gas refers to the approximate amount of time it would take for the anthropogenic increment to an atmospheric pollutant concentration to return to its natural level (assuming emissions cease) as a result of either being converted to another chemical compound or being taken out of the atmosphere via a sink. This time depends on the pollutant’s sources and sinks as well as its reactivity.

tbc

Delays can occur in climate change as a result of some factor that changes very slowly. For example, the effects of releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere may not be known for some time because a large fraction is dissolved in the ocean and only released to the atmosphere many years later.

However, there appears to be a consensus among climate scientists that more CO2 absorbed by the oceans will raise their acidity, and a number of recent studies have concluded that this will eventually disrupt the ability of marine micro-organisms to use the calcium carbonate in the water to produce their hard parts.

Unlike the EPA’s in Australia, who remain captured by pollutant industries, the USEPA has now deemed carbon dioxide (and other GHGs) a pollutant, which endangers public health and welfare. I find it curious that ill-informed Australians refute this fact when benzene and other hydrocarbons are proven carcinogens and carbon dioxide is the final process for those carcinogens.

In addition and during 2008, a Stanford scientist spelt out for the first time the direct links between increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increases in human mortality, using a state-of-the-art computer model of the atmosphere that incorporates scores of physical and chemical environmental processes.

That of course is not the concern of the denialists in Australia even though Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Sciences at Cornell University, David Pimental, wrote in his peer reviewed paper that “in the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment annually - contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.” He concluded that about 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution.

However, the environmental degradation at the hands of greedy corporations continues where the ecological desecration is glaringly obvious (except to the corporations and their supporters) but then they only have to keep the population healthy long enough to plunder the resources before moving on, leaving destruction in their path. But climate change cares nought for the economy.

Protagoras, this thread seems to have gone off the main page so hope you pick this up and thanks for the valuable info.

The data I used was from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/, there are slight variations on your data from my source but I’m not contesting either.

Can you explain what you mean by saying not to “equate liquid with gas”? What liquid were you referring to? My comparison was (I think) between two gases. The total Fossil Fuels Combusted (into the atmosphere), plus emissions from Land Use Change, compared with the Atmospheric Carbon Content (the measured residual in PPM after the biospheres’ sink process). Both gases I think?

If I am right in referring to two gas processes, the point remains that from1850 to 1990 we have pushed a total of 2,700 Gt of emitted carbon into the biosphere, this includes 1,400 Gt from LUC. Cdiac figures for 1990 state 6.4 Gt p.a., your figure for 2006 - 8.38 Gt p.a.

I’m happy with either figure however, even taking the lower 1990 number, total FFC has increased from .3 Gt in 1850 to 6.4 Gt p.a. by 1990 (8.38 Gt by 2006), this is an increase of 1,280% minimum.

Now compare this data set with the increase in ACC which has increased 22.5% 1750 to 1984 and 6.8% 1994 to 2008, let’s say 30% increase for a similar period as the FFC measurements.

The question remains (I think), why has a 1,280% increase in total Fossil Fuel Combusted only resulted in a 30% increase in the residual ACC?

I accept the NASA Oceanic data showing that delays in the oceanic carbon cycle take 8.3 years and I also accept the CSIRO’s Digital Global Vegetation Model (Roger M. Gifford) that the Land Take-up of Carbon has been steady at 27% for the past 35 years.

Can you reconcile this?

Thanks

Sorry Spindoc, all those figures are doing my head in. Perhaps you are making these matters difficult by endeavouring to assess percentages over such a large time frame.

Why not attempt to correlate elevated atmospheric concentrations of CO2 with elevated fossil fuel production? Only then will you see an emerging correlation between FF production and increased CO2 levels.

In addition coal production did not rapidly expand until towards the end of the nineteenth century and the largest expansion of petroleum products occurred after WW2, however production even then, in comparison to the latter half of the twentieth century and the twenty first century, was trivial in comparison:

Coal Production (million tons/year)...Atmospheric Concentrations CO2

1965 1566.3..................................................320.03
1976 2969.....................................................332.06
1998 3548.3..................................................366.50
2001 3602.....................................................371.07
2005 3897.....................................................379.75
2006 3914.....................................................381.85

Gas (billion cubic metres/year)

1965.......655.2
1975.....1196.5
2006.....2850.8

Therefore over 41 years of the highest gas and coal production, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by 61.82ppm and these figures clearly indicate that CO2 has significantly increased during the period of greatest growth - the last half century or so.

However, in the 41 years preceding the above – ie. 1879 to 1920, CO2 concentrations increased by a mere 10.90ppm.

In fact, over 750 years ie. 1000 to 1750, atmospheric CO2 concentrations actually reduced by 0.23ppm.

"Worldwide production of coal increased from 150 million tons in 1860 to 4.573 billion tons in 1987 (a less moderate figure to the above data) and in the United States alone the production of coal has mushroomed from 10 million tons in 1850 to 1 billion tons in 1990 (Newton).

"There are similar patterns in the production of oil and natural gas."

I would suggest Spindoc that you apportion the 30% carbon increase to the appropriate eras and I imagine the experts on the link you provided would be happy to answer any additional queries.

It is relatively simple to contort data over an inappropriate lengthy period of time, however, one would need to present a very convincing argument in denying the correlation between elevated carbon emissions and elevated fossil fuel production.

The downs of the ups and downs of the hottest decade since records began are evidence that the Earth is cooling? It doesn't take the world's leading climate scientists to debunk that one (although they have of course)! It would be amusing if the issue weren't so serious.

In any case the ups and downs of global surface air temperature aren't direct measures of the Earth's energy balance; it's never been a case of warming one year, cooling next. Any graph of global temps needs to be interpreted in the context of what's going on with climate cycles like ENSO and PDO. Ongoing scientific efforts are pinning down causes for variability, as should be the case.

Warming goes on unabated - and is increasing - with the heat finding it's way into oceans, powering ongoing melt of ice sheets and glaciers. We'll see the consequences in SAT's as ongoing and accelerating warming overwhelms short term variability.