FYI: Tax rates going up

[pottery beige]

wouldnt trust this bunch of clowns stuff some insulation in me roof.....

[MAD]

Few questions for ya sudzy...

Human CO2 emissions equate to about 3% of global CO2 emissions.... How much difference does 3% make to the global temperature? and how many degrees will it drop in 100 years if we remove human added CO2 right now? and what effect will it have on the global climate? (extreme events, etc)
What is the world 'normal' CO2 level without people inhabiting the planet?
Why is Mars warming at the moment?
How many degrees will the temperature increase by if we dont change anything from now? and what effect will it have on the global climate? (extreme events, etc)

[Work Horse]

I find personal attacks really help debate.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by MAD

Few questions for ya sudzy...

Human CO2 emissions equate to about 3% of global CO2 emissions.... How much difference does 3% make to the global temperature?)

,
On present projections, it will add another 4-6C in the next 50-100 years, see: http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/799264, why indeed ask me when the knowledge from the experts is so easily accessible.

Im guessing you already know all the answers to these questions(we all have access to google dont we) and are just trying the standard Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt "gotcha" game, Ill play just to see if you try the same thing!

Originally Posted by MAD

and how many degrees will it drop in 100 years if we remove human added CO2 right now? and what effect will it have on the global climate? (extreme events, etc)

Do you mean stop adding more co2 or removing the co2 we've already added.

If we add no more co2, then we could expect to keep temps withing 1-2C, there is already some inertia to the present warming.

If we remove the 40% that man has added in the last 200 years(big $ to whoever can figure out how to do that), then we could expect no further warming and a drop of 0.7C

Originally Posted by MAD

What is the world 'normal' CO2 level without people inhabiting the planet?

Its perhaps better to say before man started adding signficant amounts of co2 to the atmosphere.

While man has inhabited the planet(and indeed the planet has had a climate that man can survive in)(last 2 million years) co2 levels have been in the reigon of 200-280ppm, until the last 200 years where they have risen 40% to current level of 394ppm.

A fairly safe bet to say 280ppm.

Originally Posted by MAD

why is mars warming at the moment?

You cant research that on the internet for yourself?, something about dust storms? What you wont find from any reputable source is that the cause is due to an increase in solar activity, so no whatever is happening on Mars is not the same reason earth is heating.

Originally Posted by MAD

Human CO2 emissions equate to about 3% of global CO2 emissions

A statement denialists like to throw out there as the numbers give false comfort to those that dont really understand how significant the 3% is.
yes on a yearly basis the co2 that the earth emits and reabsorbs naturally is about 32 times more than the amount put into the atmosphere by man.
Unfortunately the current ANNUAL extra 3% man puts up there isnt reabsorbed by nature, its already a balanced system, the 3% extra man puts up is partially absorbed by the oceans(increasing pH) and a lot of it stays up there, why we now have co2 at 394ppm, 40% more co2 than since industrialisation.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by ltd

Seriously Sudzy, you do nothing but argue in semantics as you have nothing to discredit the truth that is getting out in spite of the misinformation leftard trolls like .......... else.

Seriously, there is no point responding to just personal attacks, I am disappointed that the last post where you did the same hasnt been removed also.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sudszy

,
On present projections, it will add another 4-6C in the next 50-100 years, see: http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/799264, why indeed ask me when the knowledge from the experts is so easily accessible.

Im guessing you already know all the answers to these questions(we all have access to google dont we) and are just trying the standard Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt "gotcha" game, Ill play just to see if you try the same thing!

Projections based on assumptions.
How many degrees will it change if we reduce our additional emissions to half?

Originally Posted by sudszy

Do you mean stop adding more co2 or removing the co2 we've already added.

If we add no more co2, then we could expect to keep temps withing 1-2C, there is already some inertia to the present warming.

If we remove the 40% that man has added in the last 200 years(big $ to whoever can figure out how to do that), then we could expect no further warming and a drop of 0.7C

I mean stop adding. If we turned everything off, and disappeared totally. (it's not just about electricity and cars, wood for fires to keep us warm would become a problem.)

You didnt answer the second part.


"Inertia" something climate change proponents use to make it sound like imminent danger is ahead of us.

Inertia is a physics term. It's the resistance of a physical item to change its state of motion.

Dont go and throw momentum in the mix either, it requires mass and velocity

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its perhaps better to say before man started adding signficant amounts of co2 to the atmosphere.

While man has inhabited the planet(and indeed the planet has had a climate that man can survive in)(last 2 million years) co2 levels have been in the reigon of 200-280ppm, until the last 200 years where they have risen 40% to current level of 394ppm.

A fairly safe bet to say 280ppm.

There have been measurements that say the level has been up to around 315ppm before. around 4500 years ago iirc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0911150048.htm
Amasingly there have been co2 fluctuations before people inhabited the planet.

Originally Posted by sudszy

You cant research that on the internet for yourself?, something about dust storms? What you wont find from any reputable source is that the cause is due to an increase in solar activity, so no whatever is happening on Mars is not the same reason earth is heating.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Originally Posted by sudszy

A statement denialists like to throw out there as the numbers give false comfort to those that dont really understand how significant the 3% is.
yes on a yearly basis the co2 that the earth emits and reabsorbs naturally is about 32 times more than the amount put into the atmosphere by man.
Unfortunately the 3% man puts up there isnt reabsorbed by nature, its already a balanced system, the 3% extra man puts up is partially absorbed by the oceans(increasing pH) and a lot of it stays up there, why we now have co2 at 394ppm, 40% more co2 than since industrialisation.

So lets plant more trees and cull about 2/3rds the population.
You dont think with the increase in Co2 in the atmosphere that it might create increased growth in plants that will absorb the excess?
If the climate is on a razors edge, why above would you suggest that the eis a point where man's emission becomes significant?

[Polyal]

Surely the way in which EURO regs have been applied to the automotive industry is an example of how change can be made without direct taxation?

Why cant a similar thing be done with industry? Have targets set (and some may differ from industry to industry) that project a reduction by a given date.

That way its only the people that use those products end up paying, not eveyone. Automakers seems to have handled it ok.

[StrokedXT]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

im for the carbon tax

Let me guess you will recieve compensation

[SB076]

Originally Posted by StrokedXT

Let me guess you will recieve compensation

They will be in for a shock then, when they find their compensation doesnt met the cost of living expenses (which have increased due to the carbon tax)

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by MAD

You didnt answer the second part.

and that was? what would be the co2 level if man wasnt here?
Ill do it again, if man wasnt here today 2011, every indication is that co2 levels would be at 280ppm.

Originally Posted by MAD

Projections based on assumptions.


I mean stop adding. If we turned everything off, and disappeared totally. (it's not just about electricity and cars, wood for fires to keep us warm would become a problem.)
You didnt answer the second part.


There have been measurements that say the level has been up to around 315ppm before. around 4500 years ago iirc.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0911150048.htm

Ah, there is the "gotcha" and indeed you can work a search engine, Im not here to play games.
But is it a gotcha? I stated co2 levels had been between 200-280ppm, and you have dug something up that says 4500 years ago they were 315ppm, so be it. Hopefully your argument would be we need to go back to levels of 315ppm? no, of course not, its to try and discredit anyone telling you to use less fossil fuels.
But hangon, the link you have provided doesnt even backup the 315ppm claim and hardly supports your lines of reason, another Bolt/Jones/Monckton trait.

Originally Posted by MAD

Amasingly there have been co2 fluctuations before people inhabited the planet.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

Yes, and generally man couldnt have survived on the planet during those times, hardly a good argument to return the planet to those conditions.

Originally Posted by MAD

So lets plant more trees and cull about 2/3rds the population.
You dont think with the increase in Co2 in the atmosphere that it might create increased growth in plants that will absorb the excess?

Increased co2 will increase plant growth if nutrients and water are also increased by the same amount, but its simply not possible to do that on the earth, the other two things are finite, I covered this in an earlier post, Im not going through the whole thing again.

Originally Posted by MAD

If the climate is on a razors edge, why above would you suggest that the eis a point where man's emission becomes significant?

No comprehend question.

[SB076]

Sudszy any chance of providing some insight into post 181?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Surely the way in which EURO regs have been applied to the automotive industry is an example of how change can be made without direct taxation?

Why cant a similar thing be done with industry? Have targets set (and some may differ from industry to industry) that project a reduction by a given date.

That way its only the people that use those products end up paying, not eveyone. Automakers seems to have handled it ok.

Under the carbon tax, only the people that use the products pay also, dont use the coal based electricity, you dont pay the carbon tax. If you dont use goods and services that use fossil fuel based energy, you wont pay either.

One avenue is legislation, but who pays for the cost of doing it?, ie if the power station is only allowed to produce X tonnes of CO2 and has to find other ways of producing the electricity, who pays the extra for that?, we do.
There is no hiding the costs.

This indeed has been entertained as an option but has been rejected by economists as being too costly a way to bring about the change and that a carbon tax is more cost effective, that's what Garnaut's work was all about.

[SEZ213]

LTD...I think I love you. Worded brilliantly, and left well alone...

For the record there were 77 errors in gore's movie...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by SB076

Sudszy - how do you think the carbon tax will reduce global emissions?
I am not interested in politics of it all, but I am interested to here someone state how a carbon tax will reduce global emissions?

Another question to which Im sure you've already heard numerous people give answers to: Ill play the game..........

Yes, reducing australia's emissions wont do diddly squat to the world's temp or co2 levels. Just the same as stopping Al Gore or Julia flying around in private jets will do diddly squat too.

How many out there already use the apparent hypocriscy that Al Gore exudes as an excuse to do nothing?

Same thing on a global level.


By sending a signal that Australians as amongst the highest per capita producers of CO2 and indeed one of the highest standard of livings in the world are prepared to take measures to cut their emissions so the planet doesnt overheat.

Yes, some will say other nations wont care what we do, but they'll certainly use it as an excuse to do nothing if we dont do the right thing

[StrokedXT]

Sudzy don't you mean that the aus govt is prepared to lower our standard of living to improve the third worlds living standards.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by MAD

"Inertia" something climate change proponents use to make it sound like imminent danger is ahead of us.

Inertia is a physics term. It's the resistance of a physical item to change its state of motion.

Dont go and throw momentum in the mix either, it requires mass and velocity

?

Oh, you added this bit later? so this sullies the message Ive delivered?
Hardly.

Inertia is a term supposedly well understood by the layman as something that is already in motion that is difficult to stop or indeed something that is not moving and is therefore difficult to change so was entirely appropriate. Im sure everyone here understands the idea that putting the brakes on a moving train wont stop it instantly?
The use of the word "inertia" in the english language certainly isnt confined to the physics world, it could be used to describe some people's lack of ability to change their thinking: Intellectual/academic inertia.


Im not quite sure what the "correct" term would be, perhaps thermal inertia or latent potential(but any school boy physics students could argue the case against)

Language is there solely to get the message across, using a bigger word than inertia simply isnt necessary and I believe most would interpret it as intended.


If you have a better term, Im all ears.


So in the given context, there are warming phenomenons going on that even if we stop extra co2 tomorrow they will continue. ie the melting of the permafrosts releases large quantities of methane and co2 which will cause more warming, this will continue at present temperatures as there is no reason for the permafrost to freeze over and stop the effect.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sudszy

and that was? what would be the co2 level if man wasnt here?
Ill do it again, if man wasnt here today 2011, every indication is that co2 levels would be at 280ppm.

The additional question was what will the increases in temperatures affect be on extreme weather events, either up or down.
If we are to be expected to beleive the "rock solid" science, then they should be able to deliver "rock solid" answers.

Ah, there is the "gotcha" and indeed you can work a search engine, Im not here to play games.
But is it a gotcha? I stated co2 levels had been between 200-280ppm, and you have dug something up that says 4500 years ago they were 315ppm, so be it. Hopefully your argument would be we need to go back to levels of 315ppm? no, of course not, its to try and discredit anyone telling you to use less fossil fuels.
But hangon, the link you have provided doesnt even backup the 315ppm claim and hardly supports your lines of reason, another Bolt/Jones/Monckton trait.

It's not meant to show a level we should be at, it's showing there have been fluctuations without us. Typical of you to grab on to the tiniest snippet and run with it.

Why dont you link us to some science papers that atmospheric carbon increases following increases in temperature, not the other way round?
Or maybe that ice core CO2 measurement is also disputed?
I know why, because we are just supposed to do what we're told and not question anyting.

BTW, You've qouted the wrong part.
The comment "amasingly there have been fluctuations" goes with the sciencedaily link. It wasnt meant to back up the claim of 315ppm, it again shows fluctuations occur even when we're not around.


No comments on Mars warming?

Increased co2 will increase plant growth if nutrients and water are also increased by the same amount, but its simply not possible to do that on the earth, the other two things are finite, I covered this in an earlier post, Im not going through the whole thing again.

So you're saying that every single plant in the world, has 'just enough' nutrients as it is? there's no spare? ok.

No comprehend question.

You made a comment "Its perhaps better to say before man started adding signficant amounts of co2 to the atmosphere."
But earlier you said any extra is 'not' absorbed by the planet because it is in a fine state of balance. Therefore 'any' man added CO2 should be of concern.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Oh, you added this bit later? so this sullies the message Ive delivered?
Hardly.

Not supposed to do, or undermine, anything it was just an addition. Maybe if you werent so quick to be jumping at it you would have seen any corrections, or additions.

So in the given context, there are warming phenomenons going on that even if we stop extra co2 tomorrow they will continue. ie the melting of the permafrosts releases large quantities of methane and co2 which will cause more warming, this will continue at present temperatures as there is no reason for the permafrost to freeze over and stop the effect.

So we've tipped it over the edge and nothing we can do will stop it?
I guess that means the Carbon tax really is useless.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by MAD

You made a comment "Its perhaps better to say before man started adding signficant amounts of co2 to the atmosphere."
But earlier you said any extra is 'not' absorbed by the planet because it is in a fine state of balance. Therefore 'any' man added CO2 should be of concern.

No, I didnt state that the earth was in a 'fine" state of balance and that a 10-30 ppm variation from the pre industrial 280ppm level would start an apocalypse.

The reference to significant amounts caters for the relatively small amount of land clearing that man was able to achieve before industrialisation and the small amounts of fossil fuels that man was managing to "fossick" and burn in pre industrial times, that would indeed change the co2 concentration by small amounts

mate you simply aren't interested in addressing the science, all you are trying to do is shoot the messenger.

I wont be responding to anything you direct on this issue in future, play games with someone else, thankyou.

[StrokedXT]

Sudzy do you pay tax?

[vztrt]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/128429/a...nk-carbon-tax/

Australian automotive industry body urges Government to re-think carbon tax
By Tim Beissmann | July 14th, 2011

The peak body representing the Australian automotive industry has urged the Federal Government to re-think its carbon tax plan and to work closer with the industry to develop revised legislation.

The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) says the initial carbon price of $23 per tonne will lead to increased costs to local automotive manufacturers of more than $30 million per year.

FCAI CEO Andrew McKellar said the Chamber supported the reduction of carbon emissions but was disappointed the government failed to ensure trade-exposed industries like automotive manufacturing were adequately compensated for increased costs.

“A cost increase of this magnitude will further undermine the competitive position of local manufacturing making it harder to secure future investment,” Mr McKellar said.

“We are also concerned the future costs to the automotive industry will be even higher when proposed arrangements for the treatment of air conditioning gases are taken into account and if the economy moves to a fully traded scheme too quickly.”

He said if Australia was to maintain a diverse economy with a high-tech automotive industry, it needed to secure ongoing investment in future design, engineering and production programs.

“Australia needs to take an internationally competitive approach to policy that supports industry and government co-investment and not penalise companies that invest in automotive capability in this country,” Mr McKellar said.

“We urge the Government to re-think its approach and to work with industry to ensure these concerns can be addressed before legislation is finalised.”

Earlier this week, we reported on Holden’s initial reaction to the carbon tax.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No, I didnt state that the earth was in a 'fine" state of balance and that a 10-30 ppm variation from the pre industrial 280ppm level would start an apocalypse.

The reference to significant amounts caters for the relatively small amount of land clearing that man was able to achieve before industrialisation and the small amounts of fossil fuels that man was managing to "fossick" and burn in pre industrial times, that would indeed change the co2 concentration by small amounts

mate you simply aren't interested in addressing the science, all you are trying to do is shoot the messenger.

I wont be responding to anything you direct on this issue in future, play games with someone else, thankyou.

Geez, now you're really nit picking. Talk about games.

Heres you're quote to refresh your memory.

A statement denialists like to throw out there as the numbers give false comfort to those that dont really understand how significant the 3% is.
yes on a yearly basis the co2 that the earth emits and reabsorbs naturally is about 32 times more than the amount put into the atmosphere by man.
Unfortunately the 3% man puts up there isnt reabsorbed by nature, its already a balanced system, the 3% extra man puts up is partially absorbed by the oceans(increasing pH) and a lot of it stays up there, why we now have co2 at 394ppm, 40% more co2 than since industrialisation.

I be glad if you stopped posting on this topic all together. You are a sheep to the cause, and will not listen to anything from the other side.

Not addressing the science.... And what I am doing os so different to what you are doing how?

Sorry if asking the science to provide solid answers is just asking too much. I guess I just better believe it and move on.

There are too many contrary pieces of information out there that we are just supposed to agree with in their context, but we should never relate one to something else.
If the world is such a sweet, awesome balanced system and volcanoes and earthquakes and bushfires occur naturally, are we not upsetting the balance by trying to put out these bushfires? Anyone that questions about bushfires is shot down with an answer along the lines of "The world can take care of that, it's natural" But the idea that stopping/slowing such events could be detrimental to the balance is regarded as ridiculous.

I'm not trying to shoot the messenger, I'm trying to get the messenger to open his eyes and perhaps look at all sides of the argument, rather than relying on a few beloved scientists opinions and using them as your own.

I see lots of statements, discounting other views but they are rarely backed up with any evidence. Just a one liner "that's been shown to be incorrect" or similar. Sorry but I dont accept that.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by naddis01

The difference being, Howard went to one election (1995?) saying there won't be a GST and there wasn't. He then went to the next election saying there will be and there was. Now we went to an election based on "there will be no Carbon tax under a Government I lead" and now we are getting one.

So yes Howard said there wasn't going to be a GST and we ended up with one however we had the chance to not have one. Big difference in my book.

The point I was making was in reference to the two party preferred vote.

In 2000 we had 49% of the vote for the party proposing a GST, and 51% of the vote for the party opposed to a GST.
We got the GST anyway.

This time we had 52% of the vote for the Lib's, and 48% of the vote for the ALP.
We got the ALP anyway.

Originally Posted by Scott

You say same, I say not.

I call same based on the above.
It's not that I have a problem with the GST, getting a tax cut year after year after year used to be very nice.
I do however think it a bit disingenuous that people maintain Howard had a mandate for it's introduction.

Regardless of that, I think the above two cases give a good example of why
democracy simply doesn't work.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Seriously, there is no point responding to just personal attacks, I am disappointed that the last post where you did the same hasnt been removed also.

Report it instead of having a whinge. Can't bloody read everything!

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by WMD351

The point I was making was in reference to the two party preferred vote.

In 2000 we had 49% of the vote for the party proposing a GST, and 51% of the vote for the party opposed to a GST.
We got the GST anyway.

This time we had 52% of the vote for the Lib's, and 48% of the vote for the ALP.
We got the ALP anyway.


I call same based on the above.
It's not that I have a problem with the GST, getting a tax cut year after year after year used to be very nice.
I do however think it a bit disingenuous that people maintain Howard had a mandate for it's introduction.

Regardless of that, I think the above two cases give a good example of why
democracy simply doesn't work.

But the difference is not who made it to power but what they said to get into power.

Howard went to the election saying he would introduce the GST and was elected, yes by less than 50% two party preferred, but he got the numbers.

Gillard (and Abbott) went to the election saying that they would NOT be introducing the carbon tax and was elected by getting the numbers and now they ARE introducing one.

You don't see the difference? One we got to vote on the introduction of the tax, the other we didn't.

Who do you think would have won the election if Labor went to the election saying they would be bringing in the carbon tax?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by WMD351

In 2000 we had 49% of the vote for the party proposing a GST, and 51% of the vote for the party opposed to a GST.
We got the GST anyway.

The vote was in 1998.

[gtfpv]

the democrats approved the GST , not the voting public , where are the democrats and the liberals today ? the democrats and gone as a direct result . the liberals are in opposition, because of a direct result of work choices .
i dont remember voting on a GST .
ALL GOVTS LIE . whats the thing that everyone will remember about the new state govt ? 2.5% PA CAPPED at best public servant increases , even if inflation is uncapped ? did anyone see that coming ? it was the public servants who swung thier votes towards this state party.
i'm not infavour of this carbon tax . but the bells and whistles here are amazing and self boasting .not argumentive with substance.

i should add to clarify my points . we can see govts go down when they deceive the public . under the same scenario the exact same result will occur .
however we still have the GST . BUT work choices is gone on paper only but still exists in everyday life i can assure you .
itsd a mixed can of worms , its not really the voting publics fault . there are a few here who have arrogant one sided opinions . this is the ones who pretty much always take themselves and the rest of us out with them , just look at what happens to arrogant govts .

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Report it instead of having a whinge. Can't bloody read everything!

it was reported, and have just done again.

[Auslandau]

Sent you a PM Sudzy to say I never received a report today nor yesterday but you have decided not to receive PM's so don't know what button you are pushing but if you feel that way about the post I will delete it .......

Back to topic ...... please discuss as calmly as possible without the insults. I am not going to close the thread as I have been a part of it (Admin or other Mods can do so if they wish) but any more posts where there is a direct or personal attack on someone will get warnings.

It is an important subject ...... worth discussing but needs to do so without being personal. I know it is hard to discussion these topics without getting too involved in the actual politics of it but keep it civil.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by Scott

The vote was in 1998.

The old grey mare she ain't what she used to be
My real point is that we're living in a democracy but we never seem to get what the majority want.

Originally Posted by gtfpv

ALL GOVTS LIE .

Amen.